Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37326385›Full record

ArticleCancer medicine2023

Construction of refined staging classification systems integrating FIGO/T-categories and corpus uterine invasion for non-metastatic cervical cancer.

Xiao-Dan Huang, Kai Chen, Liu Shi, Ying-Shan Luo, Yi Ou-Yang, Jun-Yun Li, Lan-Qing Huo, Lin Huang, Fo-Ping Chen, Xin-Ping Cao

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

10 authors.

Xiao-Dan HuangDepartment of Radiation Oncology; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine; Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.
Kai ChenDepartment of Radiation Oncology; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine; Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.
Liu ShiDepartment of Radiation Oncology; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine; Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.
Ying-Shan LuoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Guangzhou Concord Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.
Yi Ou-YangDepartment of Radiation Oncology; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine; Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.
Jun-Yun LiDepartment of Radiation Oncology; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine; Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.
Lan-Qing HuoDepartment of Radiation Oncology; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine; Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.
Lin HuangDepartment of Radiation Oncology; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine; Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.
Fo-Ping ChenDepartment of Radiation Oncology; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine; Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.ORCID 0000-0002-4998-8502
Xin-Ping CaoDepartment of Radiation Oncology; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine; Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo investigate the prognostic value of corpus uterine invasion (CUI) in cervical cancer (CC), and determine the necessity to incorporate it for staging.

methodsA total of 809 cases of biopsy-proven, non-metastatic CC were identified from an academic cancer center. Recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) method was used to develop the refined staging systems with respect to overall survival (OS). Internal validation was performed by using calibration curve with 1000 bootstrap resampling. Performances of the RPA-refined stages were compared against the conventional FIGO 2018 and 9th edition TNM-stage classifications by the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) and decision curve analysis (DCA).

resultsWe identified that CUI was independently prognostic for death and relapse in our cohort. RPA modeling using a two-tiered stratification by CUI (positive and negative) and FIGO/T-categories divided CC into three risk groupings (FIGO I'-III'/T1'-3'), with 5-year OS of 90.8%, 82.1%, and 68.5% for proposed FIGO stage I'-III', respectively (p ≤ 0.003 for all pairwise comparisons), and 89.7%, 78.8%, and 68.0% for proposed T1'-3', respectively (p < 0.001 for all pairwise comparisons). The RPA-refined staging systems were well validated with RPA-predicted OS rates showed optimal agreement with actual observed survivals. Additionally, the RPA-refined stages outperformed the conventional FIGO/TNM-stage with significantly higher accuracy of survival prediction (AUC: RPA-FIGO vs. FIGO, 0.663 [95% CI 0.629-0.695] vs. 0.638 [0.604-0.671], p = 0.047; RPA-T vs. T, 0.661 [0.627-0.694] vs. 0.627 [0.592-0.660], p = 0.036).

conclusionCUI affects the survival outcomes in patients with CC. Disease extended to corpus uterine should be classified as stage III/T3.

Indexed as

Uterine Cervical NeoplasmsBiopsyFemaleHumansNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalNeoplasm StagingPrognosisRetrospective Studiescervical cancercorpus uterine invasionFIGO stagerecursive partitioning analysisTNM stage

Identifiers

PMID37326385
PMCPMC10417195

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.