ArticleFrontiers in oncology2022
Comparison of the Oncological Outcomes Between Robot-Assisted and Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer Based on the New FIGO 2018 Staging System: A Multicentre Retrospective Study.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 11 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare the 3-year oncological outcomes of robot-assisted radical hysterectomy (RRH) and abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) for cervical cancer. Methods: Based on the clinical diagnosis and treatment for cervical cancer in the China database, patients with FIGO 2018 stage IA with lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI)-IB2 cervical cancer disease who underwent RRH and ARH from 2004 to 2018 were included. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to compare the 3-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) rate between patients receiving RRH and those receiving ARH. The Cox proportional hazards model and propensity score matching were used to estimate the surgical approach-specific survival. Results: A total of 1,137 patients with cervical cancer were enrolled in this study, including the RRH group (n = 468) and the ARH group (n = 669). The median follow-up time was 45 months (RRH group vs. ARH group: 24 vs. 60 months). Among the overall study population, there was no significant difference in 3-year OS and DFS between the RRH group and the ARH group (OS: 95.8% vs. 97.6% p = 0.244). The Cox proportional hazards analysis showed that RRH was not an independent risk factor for 3-year OS (HR: 1.394, 95% CI: 0.552-3.523, p = 0.482). However, RRH was an independent risk factor for 3-year DFS (HR: 1.985, 95% CI: 1.078-3.655 p = 0.028). After 1:1 propensity score matching, there was no significant difference in 3-year OS between the RRH group and the ARH group (96.6% vs. 98.0%, p = 0.470); however, the 3-year DFS of the RRH group was lower than that of the ARH group (91.0% vs. 96.1%, p = 0.025). The Cox proportional hazards analysis revealed that RRH was not an independent risk factor for 3-year OS (HR: 1.622, 95% CI: 0.449-5.860 p = 0.461), but RRH was an independent risk factor for 3-year DFS (HR: 2.498, 95% CI: 1.123-5.557 p = 0.025). Conclusion: Among patients with stage I A1 (LVSI +)-I B2 cervical cancer based on the FIGO 2018 staging system, RRH has a lower 3-year DFS than ARH, suggesting that RRH may not be suitable for early cervical cancer patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.