Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37336255›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of obstetrics and gynecology2023

Survival associated with extent of radical hysterectomy in early-stage cervical cancer: a subanalysis of the Surveillance in Cervical CANcer (SCCAN) collaborative study.

Nicolò Bizzarri, Denis Querleu, Lukáš Dostálek, Luc R C W van Lonkhuijzen, Diana Giannarelli, Aldo Lopez, Sahar Salehi, Ali Ayhan, Sarah H Kim, David Isla Ortiz and 22 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 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
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Oncologic outcome and recurrence patterns of clinical stage IB and IIA cervical cancer: A large retrospective analysis of a tertiary reference center.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Simple hysterectomyJournal of gynecologic oncology · 2024
    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

32 authors at 20 institutions in 14 countries.

Nicolò BizzarriUnità Operativa Complessa Ginecologia Oncologica, Dipartimento per la Salute della Donna e del Bambino e della Salute Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy. Electronic address: nicolo.bizzarri@yahoo.com.
Denis QuerleuUnità Operativa Complessa Ginecologia Oncologica, Dipartimento per la Salute della Donna e del Bambino e della Salute Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Lukáš DostálekFirst Faculty of Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Gynecologic Oncology Center, Charles University and General University Hospital (Central and Eastern European Gynecologic Oncology Group), Prague, Czech Republic.
Luc R C W van LonkhuijzenCenter for Gynaecologic Oncology Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Diana GiannarelliBiostatistics Unit, Scientific Directorate, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Aldo LopezDepartment of Gynecological Surgery, National Institute of Neoplastic Diseases, Lima, Peru.
Sahar SalehiDepartment of Pelvic Cancer, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden; Department of Women's and Children's Health, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Ali AyhanDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Baskent University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey.
Sarah H KimMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.
David Isla OrtizGynecology Oncology Center, National Institute of Cancerology Mexico, Mexico City, Mexico.
Jaroslav KlatFaculty of Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital and University of Ostrava, Ostrava, Czech Republic.
Fabio LandoniIRCCS Fondazione San Gerardo - Università Milano Bicocca, Monza, Italy.
Rene ParejaDepartment of Gynecologic Oncology, Instituto Nacional de Cancerología, Bogotá, Colombia.
Ranjit ManchandaWolfson Institute of Population Health, Barts Cancer Centre, Queen Mary University of London, and Barts Health NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom; Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom; Faculty of Public Health and Policy, Department of Health Services Research, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Jan KosťunDepartment of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital Pilsen, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic.
Pedro T RamirezHouston Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX.
Mehmet M MeydanliDepartment of Gynecologic Oncology, Zekai Tahir Burak Women's Health and Research Hospital, University of Health Sciences, Ankara, Turkey.
Diego OdettoDepartment of Gynecologic Oncology, Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires, Instituto Universitario Hospital Italiano, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Rene LakyDepartment of Gynecology, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
Ignacio ZapardielGynecologic Oncology Unit, La Paz University Hospital - IdiPAZ, Madrid, Spain.
Vit WeinbergerFaculty of Medicine, University Hospital Brno, Masaryk University, Brno, Czechia.
Ricardo Dos ReisDepartment of Gynecologic Oncology, Barretos Cancer Hospital, Barretos, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Luigi Pedone AnchoraUnità Operativa Complessa Ginecologia Oncologica, Dipartimento per la Salute della Donna e del Bambino e della Salute Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Karina AmaroOncology Unit, Cayetano Heredia Hospital, Lima, Peru.
Huseyin AkilliDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Baskent University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey.
Nadeem R Abu-RustumMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.
Rosa A Salcedo-HernándezGynecology Oncology Center, National Institute of Cancerology Mexico, Mexico City, Mexico.
Veronika JavůrkováFaculty of Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital and University of Ostrava, Ostrava, Czech Republic.
Constantijne H MomCenter for Gynaecologic Oncology Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Giovanni ScambiaUnità Operativa Complessa Ginecologia Oncologica, Dipartimento per la Salute della Donna e del Bambino e della Salute Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Henrik FalconerDepartment of Pelvic Cancer, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden; Department of Women's and Children's Health, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
David CibulaFirst Faculty of Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Gynecologic Oncology Center, Charles University and General University Hospital (Central and Eastern European Gynecologic Oncology Group), Prague, Czech Republic.
Agostino Gemelli University Polyclinic · ITCharles University · CZAmsterdam University Medical Centers · NLBaşkent University · TRInstituto Nacional de Cancerología · MXKarolinska University Hospital · SEMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · USUniversity of Ostrava · CZHospital de Câncer de Barretos · BRHospital Italiano de Buenos Aires · ARHospital Nacional Cayetano Heredia · PEHospital Universitario La Paz · ESInstituto Nacional de Cancerología · COInstituto Nacional de Enfermedades Neoplásicas · PEMasaryk University · CZMedical University of Graz · ATMethodist Hospital · USQueen Mary University of London · GBUniversity of Milano-Bicocca · ITZekai Tahir Burak Kadın Sağlığı Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi · TR

Funding

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

Abstract

backgroundInternational guidelines recommend tailoring the radicality of hysterectomy according to the known preoperative tumor characteristics in patients with early-stage cervical cancer.

objectiveThis study aimed to assess whether increased radicality had an effect on 5-year disease-free survival in patients with early-stage cervical cancer undergoing radical hysterectomy. The secondary aims were 5-year overall survival and pattern of recurrence. STUDY

designThis was an international, multicenter, retrospective study from the Surveillance in Cervical CANcer (SCCAN) collaborative cohort. Patients with the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2009 stage IB1 and IIA1 who underwent open type B/C1/C2 radical hysterectomy according to Querleu-Morrow classification between January 2007 and December 2016, who did not undergo neoadjuvant chemotherapy and who had negative lymph nodes and free surgical margins at final histology, were included. Descriptive statistics and survival analyses were performed. Patients were stratified according to pathologic tumor diameter. Propensity score match analysis was performed to balance baseline characteristics in patients undergoing nerve-sparing and non-nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy.

resultsA total of 1257 patients were included. Of note, 883 patients (70.2%) underwent nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy, and 374 patients (29.8%) underwent non-nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy. Baseline differences between the study groups were found for tumor stage and diameter (higher use of non-nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy for tumors >2 cm or with vaginal involvement; P<.0001). The use of adjuvant therapy in patients undergoing nerve-sparing and non-nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy was 27.3% vs 28.6%, respectively (P=.63). Five-year disease-free survival in patients undergoing nerve-sparing vs non-nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy was 90.1% (95% confidence interval, 87.9-92.2) vs 93.8% (95% confidence interval, 91.1-96.5), respectively (P=.047). Non-nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy was independently associated with better disease-free survival at multivariable analysis performed on the entire cohort (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% confidence interval, 0.31-0.81; P=.004). Furthermore, 5-year overall survival in patients undergoing nerve-sparing vs non-nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy was 95.7% (95% confidence interval, 94.1-97.2) vs non-nerve-sparing 96.5% (95% confidence interval, 94.3-98.7), respectively (P=.78). In patients with a tumor diameter ≤20 mm, 5-year disease-free survival was 94.7% in nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy vs 96.2% in non-nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy (P=.22). In patients with tumors between 21 and 40 mm, 5-year disease-free survival was 90.3% in non-nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy vs 83.1% in nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy (P=.016) (no significant difference in the rate of adjuvant treatment in this subgroup, P=.47). This was confirmed after propensity match score analysis (balancing the 2 study groups). The pattern of recurrence in the propensity-matched population did not demonstrate any difference (P=.70).

conclusionFor tumors ≤20 mm, no survival difference was found with more radical hysterectomy. For tumors between 21 and 40 mm, a more radical hysterectomy was associated with improved 5-year disease-free survival. No difference in the pattern of recurrence according to the extent of radicality was observed. Non-nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy was associated with better 5-year disease-free survival than nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy after propensity score match analysis.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Squamous CellUterine Cervical NeoplasmsDisease-Free SurvivalFemaleHumansHysterectomyNeoplasm StagingPregnancyRetrospective Studiescervical cancerearly stagelaparotomyradical hysterectomyradicalitysurgerysurvival

Identifiers

PMID37336255
PMCPMC10966343
OpenAlexW4381051742

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.