ArticleFrontiers in oncology2022
Survival Outcomes of Patients With Stage IB3 Cervical Cancer Who Undergo Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy Versus Radiochemotherapy.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- MRI in deciphering the superficial spread of cervical squamous cell carcinoma into the uterine corpus: A case report and literature review.Oncoscience · 2026Article
- Development and validation of the competing risk nomogram and risk classification system for predicting cancer-specific mortality in patients with cervical adenosquamous carcinoma treated via radical hysterectomy.Biomolecules & biomedicine · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to compare the survival outcomes among stage IB3 cervical cancer patients who undergo abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH)+pelvic lymphadenectomy ± para-aortic lymph node dissection versus radiochemotherapy (R-CT). Methods: Based on the large number of diagnoses and treatments for cervical cancer in the Chinese database, propensity score matching (PSM) was used to compare the 5-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) rates of the ARH group and R-CT group. Results: There were 590 patients with stage IB3 cervical cancer according to the FIGO 2018 staging system, with 470 patients in the ARH group and 120 patients in the R-CT group. The ARH and R-CT groups showed different 5-year OS and DFS rates in the total study population, and the 5-year OS and DFS rates in the R-CT group (n = 120) were lower than those in the ARH group (n = 470) (OS: 78.1% vs. 92.1%, p < 0.001; DFS: 71.6% vs. 90.3%, p < 0.001). R-CT was associated with a worse 5-year OS rate (hazard ratio [HR] = 3.401; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.875-6.167; p < 0.001) and DFS rate (HR = 3.440; 95% CI = 2.075-5.703; p < 0.001) by Cox multivariate analysis. After 1:3 PSM, the 5-year OS and DFS rates in the R-CT group (n = 108) were lower than those in the RH group (n = 280) (OS: 76.4% vs. 94.0%, p < 0.001; DFS: 69.3% vs. 92.6%, p < 0.001, respectively). R-CT was associated with a worse 5-year OS rate (HR = 4.071; 95% CI = 2.042-8.117; p < 0.001) and DFS rate (HR = 4.450; 95% CI = 2.441-8.113; p < 0.001) by Cox multivariate analysis. Conclusion: Our study found that for FIGO 2018 stage IB3 cervical cancer patients, ARH resulted in better OS and DFS than R-CT.
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.