ArticleScientific reports2023
Surgically treated cervical cancer in a high-risk group in the era of the 2018 FIGO staging schema: a nationwide study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- MRI-defined parametrial venous invasion in locally advanced cervical cancer: association with pathological venous invasion, pretreatment lymph node metastasis, and survival outcomes.Japanese journal of radiology · 2026Article
- The differences of pelvic lymph node metastasis between squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma in early-stage cervical cancer patients undergoing radical surgery and adjuvant radiotherapy: a large cohort study.Therapeutic advances in medical oncology · 2026Article
- Debunking Myths and Misinformation in Cervical Cancer: A Narrative Review on Navigating Complex Treatment Choices in Locally Advanced Cases and Exploring Beyond Standard Protocols.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- 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
- Prognostic analysis of stage IIIC1p cervical cancer patients.Frontiers in oncology · 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 8 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The 2018 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) revision to the staging criteria for uterine cervical cancer adopted pathological staging for patients who underwent surgery. We investigated the correlation between clinicopathological factors and prognosis in patients with high-risk factors in accordance with the FIGO 2018 staging criteria by analyzing a real-world database of 6,192 patients who underwent radical hysterectomy at 116 institutions belonging to the Japan Gynecologic Oncology Group. A total of 1,392 patients were categorized into the high-risk group. Non-squamous cell carcinoma histology, regional lymph node metastasis, pT2 classification, and ovarian metastasis were identified as independent risk factors for mortality. Based on pathological findings, 313, 1003, and 76 patients were re-classified into FIGO 2018 stages IIB, IIIC1p, and IIIC2p, respectively. Patients with stage IIIC2p disease showed worse prognoses than those with stage IIB or IIIC1p disease. In patients with stage IIIC1p disease, overall survival was significantly better if their tumors were localized in the uterine cervix, except for single lymph node metastasis, with a 5-year overall survival rate of 91.8%. This study clarified the heterogeneity of the high-risk group and provided insights into the feasibility of upfront radical hysterectomy for a limited number of patients harboring high-risk factors.
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.