ArticleJournal of cancer research and clinical oncology2023
The long-term outcomes of clinical responders to neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by radical surgery in locally advanced cervical cancer.
Article in Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Favorable short-term survival in locally advanced cervical cancer with optimal pathological response after neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy: a real-world analysis.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Article
- Comparative effectiveness of neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus surgery versus concurrent chemoradiotherapy in stages IB2 to IIB of cervical cancer: a meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the long-term oncological outcome of neoadjuvant chemotherapy before radical surgery (NCRS) and definitive chemoradiotherapy (DR) for stage IB2 and IIA2 cervical squamous cell carcinoma.
methodsThe clinical outcome of 480 patients with stage IB2 and IIA2 cervical cancer (308 clinical responders, 111 clinical non-responders, 61 unclear) who underwent NCRS (and subgroup assessments) were compared with those of 233 patients who underwent DR.
resultsThe clinical response rate was 73.5% in the NCRS group. Multivariate COX regression analyses revealed that NCRS was not correlated with the 5-year overall survival (OS) rate (p = 0.067) or disease-free survival (DFS) rate (p = 0.249). In a subgroup of NCRS, the clinical response group was also shown to be a protective independent factor of 5 year OS rate compared to the DR group (aHR, 0.403; 95% CI, 0.209-0.777), but had no correlation with the 5 year DFS rate (p = 0.089). On the other hand, the clinical non-response group had no correlation with the 5 year OS rate (p = 0.780) or DFS rate (p = 0.669).
conclusionClinical responders who underwent NCRS exhibited a better oncological outcome compared to those who underwent DR. International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Port, http://apps.who.int/trialsearch/ ; CHiCTR1800017778.
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.