ArticleJournal of personalized medicine2022
Fertility-Sparing Surgery versus Radical Hysterectomy in Early Cervical Cancer: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis and Noninferiority Study.
Article in Journal of personalized medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Global Perspective on Fertility-Sparing Surgical Oncology in Gynaecology: A Narrative Literature Review.Cureus · 2026Review
- Diagnostic accuracy of intraoperative frozen section at radical abdominal trachelectomy for early-stage cervical cancer.Journal of gynecologic oncology · 2026Article
- Oncologic and obstetric outcomes of a novel nerve-sparing radical trachelectomy while preserving the uterine branches of the pelvic nerves.Translational cancer research · 2025Article
- Adoption strategies of fertility-sparing surgery for early-stage cervical cancer patients based on clinicopathological characteristics: a large retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in surgery · 2024Article
- Reproductive and Obstetric Outcomes after Fertility-Sparing Treatments for Cervical Cancer: Current Approach and Future Directions.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveFertility-sparing surgery (FSS) is the treatment of choice for patients with early cervical cancer (ECC) and fertility desire, but survival rates compared to radical hysterectomy (RH) have been scarcely reported. The aim of this study was to analyse the oncological outcomes of FSS compared to a balanced group of standard RH.
methodsA retrospective multicentre study of ECC patients who underwent FSS or RH was carried out in 12 tertiary hospitals in Spain between January 2005 and January 2019. The experimental group included patients who underwent a simple and radical trachelectomy, and the control group included patients who underwent RH. Optimal 1:1 propensity score (PS) matching analysis was performed to balance the series.
resultsThe study included 222 patients with ECC; 111 (50%) were treated with FSS, and 111 (50%) were treated with RH. After PS matching, a total of 38 patients in the FSS group and 38 patients in the RH group were analysed. In both groups, the overall survival (HR 2.5; CI 0.89, 7.41) and recurrence rates (28.9% in the FSS group vs. 13.2% in RH group) were similar. The rate of disease-free survival at 5 years was 68.99% in the FSS group and 88.01% in the RH group (difference of -19.02 percentage points; 95% CI -32.08 to -5.96 for noninferiority). In the univariate analysis, only tumour size reached statistical significance.
conclusionFSS offers excellent disease-free and overall survival in women with ECC with fertility desire and is not inferior compared to RH.
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.