Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36442426›Full record

ArticleGynecologic oncology2023

Stratification of lymph node metastases as macrometastases, micrometastases, or isolated tumor cells has no clinical implication in patients with cervical cancer: Subgroup analysis of the SCCAN project.

Lukáš Dostálek, Klára Benešová, Jaroslav Klát, Sarah H Kim, Henrik Falconer, Jan Kostun, Ricardo Dos Reis, Ignacio Zapardiel, Fabio Landoni, David Isla Ortiz and 13 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Gynecologic oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. MILACC study: could undetected lymph node micrometastases have impacted recurrence rate in the LACC trial?International journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society · 2023
    Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

23 authors at 12 institutions in 8 countries.

Lukáš DostálekDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, General Teaching Hospital and The First Faculty of Medicine of Charles University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic.
Klára BenešováInstitute of Biostatistics and Analyses, Institute of Biostatistics and Analyses, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic.
Jaroslav KlátDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital and University of Ostrava, Ostrava, Czech Republic.
Sarah H KimDepartment of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA.
Henrik FalconerDepartment of Pelvic Cancer, Karolinska University Hospital and Department of Women's and Children's Health, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Jan KostunDepartment of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital Pilsen, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic.
Ricardo Dos ReisDepartment of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA.
Ignacio ZapardielGynecologic Oncology Unit, La Paz University Hospital - IdiPAZ, Madrid, Spain.
Fabio LandoniDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Milano-Bicocca, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Gynaecologic Oncology Surgical Unit, ASST-Monza, San Gerardo Hospital, Monza, Italy.
David Isla OrtizGynecology Oncology Center, National Institute of Cancerology Mexico, Ciudad De Mexico, Mexico.
Luc R C W van LonkhuijzenDepartment of Gynecological Oncology, Amsterdam University Medical Center-Center for Gynecological Oncology Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Aldo LopezDepartment of Gynecological Surgery, National Institute of Neoplastic Diseases, Lima, Peru.
Diego OdettoDepartment of Gynecologic Oncology, Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires, Instituto Universitario Hospital Italiano, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Martina BorčinováDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, General Teaching Hospital and The First Faculty of Medicine of Charles University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic.
Jiri JarkovskyInstitute of Biostatistics and Analyses, Institute of Biostatistics and Analyses, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic.
Sahar SalehiDepartment of Pelvic Cancer, Karolinska University Hospital and Department of Women's and Children's Health, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Kristýna NěmejcováDepartment of Pathology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Czech Republic.
Sylva BajsováDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital and University of Ostrava, Ostrava, Czech Republic.
Kay J ParkDepartment of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA.
Veronika JavůrkováDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital and University of Ostrava, Ostrava, Czech Republic.
Nadeem R Abu-RustumDepartment of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA.
Pavel DundrDepartment of Pathology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Czech Republic.
David CibulaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, General Teaching Hospital and The First Faculty of Medicine of Charles University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic. Electronic address: dc@davidcibula.cz.
Charles University · CZMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · USUniversity of Ostrava · CZGeneral University Hospital in Prague · CZKarolinska Institutet · SEMasaryk University · CZHospital Italiano de Buenos Aires · ARHospital Universitario La Paz · ESInstituto Nacional de Cancerología · MXInstituto Nacional de Enfermedades Neoplásicas · PEThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · USUniversity of Milano-Bicocca · IT

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Nicholas D Socci · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn cervical cancer, presence of lymph-node macrometastases (MAC) is a major prognostic factor and an indication for adjuvant treatment. However, since clinical impact of micrometastases (MIC) and isolated tumor-cells (ITC) remains controversial, we sought to identify a cut-off value for the metastasis size not associated with negative prognosis.

methodsWe analyzed data from 967 cervical cancer patients (T1a1L1-T2b) registered in the SCCAN (Surveillance in Cervical CANcer) database, who underwent primary surgical treatment, including sentinel lymph-node (SLN) biopsy with pathological ultrastaging. The size of SLN metastasis was considered a continuous variable and multiple testing was performed for cut-off values of 0.01-1.0 mm. Disease-free survival (DFS) was compared between N0 and subgroups of N1 patients defined by cut-off ranges.

resultsLN metastases were found in 172 (18%) patients, classified as MAC, MIC, and ITC in 79, 54, and 39 patients, respectively. DFS was shorter in patients with MAC (HR 2.20, P = 0.003) and MIC (HR 2.87, P < 0.001), while not differing between MAC/MIC (P = 0.484). DFS in the ITC subgroup was neither different from N0 (P = 0.127) nor from MIC/MAC subgroups (P = 0.449). Cut-off analysis revealed significantly shorter DFS compared to N0 in all subgroups with metastases ≥0.4 mm (HR 2.311, P = 0.04). The significance of metastases <0.4 mm could not be assessed due to limited statistical power (<80%). We did not identify any cut-off for the size of metastasis with significantly better prognosis than the rest of N1 group.

conclusionsIn cervical cancer patients, the presence of LN metastases ≥0.4 mm was associated with a significant negative impact on DFS and no cut-off value for the size of metastasis with better prognosis than N1 was found. Traditional metastasis stratification based on size has no clinical implication.

Indexed as

Sentinel Lymph NodeUterine Cervical NeoplasmsFemaleHumansLymphatic MetastasisLymph NodesNeoplasm MicrometastasisNeoplasm StagingSentinel Lymph Node BiopsyCervical cancerClassificationDisease-free survivalHistopathological ultrastagingIsolated tumor cellsLow volume metastasisMacrometastasisMicrometastasisPrognosisSentinel lymph node

Identifiers

PMID36442426
PMCPMC10413820
OpenAlexW4310010626

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.