Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38229045›Full record

ArticleBMC cancer2024

Long-term outcomes of pelvic exenterations for gynecological malignancies: a single-center retrospective cohort study.

Jie-Hai Yu, Chong-Jie Tong, Qi-Dan Huang, Yun-Lin Ye, Gong Chen, Hao Li, Yong-Shan Wen, Fan Yang, Nan-Bin Luo, Guang-Yu Xu and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC cancer, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Evaluation of survival and mortality in pelvic exenteration for gynecologic malignancies: a systematic review, meta-analyses, and meta-regression study.International journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society · 2025
    Pooled it
  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

11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Jie-Hai Yu *State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.
Chong-Jie Tong *State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.
Qi-Dan Huang *State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.
Yun-Lin YeState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.
Gong ChenState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.
Hao LiState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.
Yong-Shan WenState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.
Fan YangState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.
Nan-Bin LuoState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.
Guang-Yu XuSuzhou Medical College of Soochow University, Suzhou, China.
Ying XiongState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China. tdken999@163.com.
Sun Yat-sen University · CNSun Yat-sen University Cancer Center · CNSoochow University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecently, with the advancement of medical technology, the postoperative morbidity of pelvic exenteration (PE) has gradually decreased, and it has become a curative treatment option for some patients with recurrent gynecological malignancies. However, more evidence is still needed to support its efficacy. This study aimed to explore the safety and long-term survival outcome of PE and the feasibility of umbilical single-port laparoscopic PE for gynecologic malignancies in a single medical center in China. PATIENTS AND

methodsPE for gynecological cancers except for ovarian cancer conducted by a single surgical team in Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center between July 2014 and December 2019 were included and the data were retrospectively analyzed.

resultsForty-one cases were included and median age at diagnosis was 53 years. Cervical cancer accounted for 87.8% of all cases, and most of them received prior treatment (95.1%). Sixteen procedures were performed in 2016 and before, and 25 after 2016. Three anterior PE were performed by umbilical single-site laparoscopy. The median operation time was 460 min, and the median estimated blood loss was 600 ml. There was no perioperative death. The years of the operations was significantly associated with the length of the operation time (P = 0.0018). The overall morbidity was 52.4%, while the severe complications rate was 19.0%. The most common complication was pelvic and abdominal infection. The years of surgery was also significantly associated with the occurrence of severe complication (P = 0.040). The median follow-up time was 55.8 months. The median disease-free survival (DFS) was 17.9 months, and the median overall survival (OS) was 25.3 months. The 5-year DFS was 28.5%, and the 5-year OS was 30.8%.

conclusionPE is safe for patient who is selected by a multi-disciplinary treatment, and can be a curative treatment for some patients. PE demands a high level of experience from the surgical team. Umbilical single-port laparoscopy was a technically feasible approach for APE, meriting further investigation.

Indexed as

Genital Neoplasms, FemaleOvarian NeoplasmsPelvic ExenterationUterine Cervical NeoplasmsFemaleHumansMiddle AgedNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalRetrospective StudiesGynecological cancerPelvic exenterationSingle-port laparoscopic surgerySurgical complicationSurvival

Identifiers

PMID38229045
PMCPMC10792850
OpenAlexW4390929159

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.