ArticleBMC cancer2023
Treatment of FIGO 2018 stage IIIC cervical cancer with different local tumor factors.
Article in BMC cancer, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Survival outcomes in IIIC cervical cancer by treatment strategies: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC cancer · 2025Pooled it
- Article
- PD-1 inhibitor plus concurrent chemoradiotherapy for high-risk locally advanced cervical cancer.Future oncology (London, England) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo compare the oncological outcomes of patients with FIGO 2018 stage IIIC cervical cancer (CC) involving different local tumor factors who underwent abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH), neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radical surgery (NACT), or radical chemoradiotherapy (R-CT).
methodsBased on tumor staging, patients with stage IIIC were divided into T1, T2a, T2b, and T3 groups. Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards regression analysis were used to compare their overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) of 5 years.
resultsWe included 4,086 patients (1,117, 1,019, 869, and 1,081 in the T1, T2a, T2b, and T3 groups, respectively). In the T1 group, NACT was correlated with a decrease in OS (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.631, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.150-2.315, P = 0.006) and DFS (HR = 1.665, 95% CI: 1.255-2.182, P < 0.001) than ARH. ARH and NACT were not correlated with OS (P = 0.226 and P = 0.921) or DFS (P = 0.343 and P = 0.535) than R-CT. In the T2a group, NACT was correlated with a decrease in OS (HR = 1.454, 95% CI: 1.057-2.000, P = 0.021) and DFS (HR = 1.529, 95% CI: 1.185-1.974, P = 0.001) than ARH. ARH and NACT were not correlated with OS (P = 0.736 and P = 0.267) or DFS (P = 0.714 and P = 0.087) than R-CT. In the T2b group, NACT was correlated with a decrease in DFS (HR = 1.847, 95% CI: 1.347-2.532, P < 0.001) than R-CT nevertheless was not correlated with OS (P = 0.146); ARH was not correlated with OS (P = 0.056) and DFS (P = 0.676). In the T3 group, the OS rates of ARH (n = 10), NACT (n = 18), and R-CT (n = 1053) were 67.5%, 53.1%, and 64.7% (P = 0.941), and the DFS rates were 68.6%, 45.5%, and 61.1%, respectively (P = 0.761).
conclusionR-CT oncological outcomes were not entirely superior to those of NACT or ARH under different local tumor factors with stage IIIC. NACT is not suitable for stage T1, T2a, and T2b. Nevertheless ARH is potentially applicable to stage T1, T2a, T2b and T3. The results of stage T3 require confirmation through further research due to disparity in case numbers in each subgroup.
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.