ArticleClinical Medicine Insights. Oncology2023
Validation of the 2018 FIGO Staging System for Predicting the Prognosis of Patients With Stage IIIC Cervical Cancer.
Article in Clinical Medicine Insights. Oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prognostic value of Node-RADS scoring in stage IIICr cervical cancer: development and validation of novel nomograms.Insights into imaging · 2026Article
- Article
- Nodal status in predicting the outcome of treatment with definitive chemoradiation in patients with cervical cancer in FIGO IIIC1 and IIIC2 stages.Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology · 2026Article
- Re-evaluating prognostic factors for cervical cancer with lymph node metastasis: a Japanese multicenter cohort study based on FIGO 2018.International journal of clinical oncology · 2025Article
- Efficacy of integrating surgical interventions with chemoradiotherapy in managing stage IIIC cervical cancer.American journal of translational research · 2025Article
- Validation of the 2018 FIGO staging system for stage IIIC cervical cancer by determining the metabolic and radiomic heterogeneity of primary tumors based onAbdominal radiology (New York) · 2024Article
- Stage migration and survival outcomes in patients with cervical cancer at Stage IIIC according to the 2018 FIGO staging system: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Review
- Clinical Outcomes and Prognostic Factors in Stage III C Cervical Cancer Patients Treated with Radical Radiotherapy or Radiochemotherapy.Technology in cancer research & treatmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Risk stratification of patients with cervical cancer accompanied by positive lymph nodes (stage IIIC) (the 2018 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics [FIGO] new staging system) yields a clinically heterogeneous group. In this study, we investigated the prognostic performance of the 2018 FIGO staging system for stage IIIC cervical cancer. Methods: The study included patients with stage III cervical cancer based on the 2018 FIGO staging system, who visited Chongqing University Cancer Hospital between January 2011 and December 2014. Kaplan-Meier curves were generated to evaluate overall survival (OS), which was compared using the log-rank test. The Cox proportional hazard regression model was used for multivariable analysis. Results: A total of 418 patients were eligible for analysis. The 5-year OS was 54.1% for stage IIIC1, 43.3% for stage IIIA, 40.6% for stage IIIB, and 23.1% for stage IIIC2 ( Conclusions: Patients with stage IIIC1 cervical cancer showed heterogeneous clinical characteristics that reflected variable prognoses, depending on the T stage and the extent of pelvic lymph node metastases.
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.