Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37788719›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of obstetrics and gynecology2024

International expert consensus on the surgical anatomic classification of radical hysterectomies.

Denis Querleu, David Cibula, Nadeem R Abu-Rustum, Francesco Fanfani, Anna Fagotti, Luigi Pedone Anchora, Manuel Maria Ianieri, Vito Chiantera, Nicolò Bizzarri, Giovanni Scambia

Abstract readConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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.

Denis QuerleuUOC Ginecologia Oncologica, Dipartimento per la salute della Donna e del Bambino e della Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy. Electronic address: denis.querleu@esgo.org.
David CibulaCharles University and General University Hospital, First Faculty of Medicine, Prague, Czech Republic.
Nadeem R Abu-RustumDepartment of Surgery, Gynecology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.
Francesco FanfaniUOC Ginecologia Oncologica, Dipartimento per la salute della Donna e del Bambino e della Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Anna FagottiUOC Ginecologia Oncologica, Dipartimento per la salute della Donna e del Bambino e della Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Luigi Pedone AnchoraUOC Ginecologia Oncologica, Dipartimento per la salute della Donna e del Bambino e della Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Manuel Maria IanieriUOC Ginecologia Oncologica, Dipartimento per la salute della Donna e del Bambino e della Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Vito ChianteraUnit of Gynecologic Oncology, ARNAS Civico - Di Cristina - Benfratelli, Department of Health Promotion, Mother and Child Care, Internal Medicine and Medical Specialties (PROMISE), University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Nicolò BizzarriUOC Ginecologia Oncologica, Dipartimento per la salute della Donna e del Bambino e della Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Giovanni ScambiaUOC Ginecologia Oncologica, Dipartimento per la salute della Donna e del Bambino e della Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy.

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Hongbiao Carl Lekaye · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
Network Lead Academic Participating Site: Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer CenterUG1CA233290 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INST CAN RESEARCH · PI CAROL AGHAJANIAN, Darren Feldman · 2019 to 2026
$10.2M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748NCI NIH HHS UG1 CA233290
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe anatomic descriptions and extents of radical hysterectomy often vary across the literature and operative reports worldwide. The same nomenclature is often used to describe varying procedures, and different nomenclature is often used to describe the same procedure despite the availability of guideline and classification systems. This makes it difficult to interpret retrospective surgical reports, analyze surgical databases, understand technique descriptions, and interpret the findings of surgical studies.

objectiveIn collaboration with international experts in gynecologic oncology, the purpose of this study was to establish a consensus in defining and interpreting the 2017 updated Querleu-Morrow classification of radical hysterectomies. STUDY

designThe anatomic templates of type A, B, and C radical hysterectomy were documented through a set of 13 images taken at the time of cadaver dissection. An online survey related to radical hysterectomy nomenclature and definitions or descriptions of the associated procedures was circulated among international experts in radical hysterectomy. A 3-step modified Delphi method was used to establish consensus. Image legends were amended according to the experts' responses and then redistributed as part of a second round of the survey. Consensus was defined by a yes response to a question concerning a specific image. Anyone who responded no to a question was welcome to comment and provide justification. A final set of images and legends were compiled to anatomically illustrate and define or describe a lateral, ventral, and dorsal excision of the tissues surrounding the cervix.

resultsIn total, there were 13 questions to review, and 29 experts completed the whole process. Final consensus exceeded 90% for all questions except 1 (86%). Questions with relatively lower consensus rates concerned the definitions of types A and B2 radical hysterectomy, which were the main innovations of the 2017 updated version of the 2008 Querleu-Morrow classification. Questions with the highest consensus rates concerned the definitions of types B1 and C, which are the most frequently performed radical hysterectomies.

conclusionThe 2017 version of the Querleu-Morrow classification proved to be a robust tool for defining and describing the extent of radical hysterectomies with a high level of consensus among international experts in gynecologic oncology. Knowledge and implementation of the exact definitions of hysterectomy radicality are imperative in clinical practice and clinical research.

Indexed as

Genital Neoplasms, FemaleCervix UteriConsensusFemaleHumansHysterectomyRetrospective Studiescervical cancerclassificationgynecologic oncologyQuerleu-Morrowradical hysterectomy

Identifiers

PMID37788719
PMCPMC11651126

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.