ArticleGynecologic oncology2022
The MEMORY Study: MulticentEr study of Minimally invasive surgery versus Open Radical hYsterectomy in the management of early-stage cervical cancer: Survival outcomes.
Article in Gynecologic oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of open and minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of survival outcomes.BMC surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Robotic Versus Open Radical Hysterectomy in Early-Stage Cervical Cancer: A Comparative Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Outcomes of Cervical Cancer Treatment Using Total Mesometrial Resection (TMMR) Performed with the Robotic System-A Preliminary Report.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Laparoscopy in the Surgical Management of Gynecological Cancer: A Comprehensive Update.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- ROCC/GOG-3043: a randomized controlled trial of robotic versus open surgery for early-stage cervical cancer.International journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society · 2025Article
- A Minimally Invasive Treatment Approach for Early-Stage Uterine Cervical Cancer: The Impact of the LACC Trial and a Literature Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Review
- Effects of tumor spillage prevention in laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis.Journal of gynecologic oncology · 2025Article
- Advances in cervical cancer: current insights and future directions.Cancer communications (London, England) · 2025Review
- Minimally invasive surgery in gynecologic oncology: a narrative review of controversies and clinical implications.Gynecology and pelvic medicine · 2025Review
- Article
- Comparison of outcomes of laparotomic and minimally invasive radical hysterectomy in women with early-stage cervical cancer.Journal of gynecologic oncology · 2024Article
- The SHAPE trial: is good is good enough?Journal of gynecologic oncology · 2024Article
- Article
- Robotic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: current trends and controversies.Journal of Cancer · 2024Review
- Mexican consensus about surgical treatment in early-stage cervicouterine cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Review
- Survival outcomes of abdominal radical hysterectomy, laparoscopic radical hysterectomy, robot-assisted radical hysterectomy and vaginal radical hysterectomy approaches for early-stage cervical cancer: a retrospective study.World journal of surgical oncology · 2023Article
- An optimized robotic surgical technique for cervical cancer: investigating whether the use of the pulling robotic arm has better surgical outcomes.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Hysterectomy: Let's Step Up the Ladder of Evidence to Look Over the Horizon.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Evaluation of Surgical Outcomes of Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy and Total Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer: A Retrospective Analysis of Data Collected before the LACC Trial.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Radical Hysterectomy for Early Stage Cervical Cancer.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
37 authors at 18 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer (LACC) trial found that minimally invasive radical hysterectomy compared to open radical hysterectomy compromised oncologic outcomes and was associated with worse progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in early-stage cervical carcinoma. We sought to assess oncologic outcomes at multiple centers between minimally invasive (MIS) radical hysterectomy and OPEN radical hysterectomy.
methodsThis is a multi-institutional, retrospective cohort study of patients with 2009 FIGO stage IA1 (with lymphovascular space invasion) to IB1 cervical carcinoma from 1/2007-12/2016. Patients who underwent preoperative therapy were excluded. Squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, and adenosquamous carcinomas were included. Appropriate statistical tests were used.
resultsWe identified 1093 cases for analysis-715 MIS (558 robotic [78%]) and 378. OPEN procedures. The OPEN cohort had more patients with tumors >2 cm, residual disease in the hysterectomy specimen, and more likely to have had adjuvant therapy. Median follow-up for the MIS and OPEN cohorts were 38.5 months (range, 0.03-149.51) and 54.98 months (range, 0.03-145.20), respectively. Three-year PFS rates were 87.9% (95% CI: 84.9-90.4%) and 89% (95% CI: 84.9-92%), respectively (P = 0.6). On multivariate analysis, the adjusted HR for recurrence/death was 0.70 (95% CI: 0.47-1.03; P = 0.07). Three-year OS rates were 95.8% (95% CI: 93.6-97.2%) and 96.6% (95% CI: 93.8-98.2%), respectively (P = 0.8). On multivariate analysis, the adjusted HR for death was 0.81 (95% CI: 0.43-1.52; P = 0.5).
conclusionThis multi-institutional analysis showed that an MIS compared to OPEN radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer did not appear to compromise oncologic outcomes, with similar PFS and OS.
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.