ArticleCancer management and research2024
Comparative Analysis of Oncologic Outcomes in Patients with Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Uterine Cervix with High-Risk Features for Para-Aortic Recurrence: Prophylactic Extended-Field versus Pelvic Chemoradiotherapy.
Article in Cancer management and research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Construction and validation of the prediction model for fear of cancer recurrence in patients with postoperative cervical cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the oncologic outcomes of prophylactic extended-field radiation therapy (EFRT) and whole pelvic radiation therapy (WPRT) in cervical patients at high risk of para-aortic lymph node (PALN) recurrence. Patients and Methods: From July 1999 to May 2022, a total of 115 patients with cervical cancer and high-risk features of PALN recurrence based on tumor markers, positive LNs and extensive parametrial invasion were retrospectively analyzed. All patients had received EFRT or WPRT at a dose of 39.6-45 Gy and concurrent chemotherapy. In EFRT, coverage was extended to include the para-aortic region below the level of the left renal vein or T12. Results: Twenty-eight and 87 patients underwent EFRT and WPRT, respectively. For patients who survived, the median follow-up time was 60.8 months (range 9.2-131.6 months) in the EFRT group and 115.9 months (range 16.9-212.1 months) in the WPRT group. The 5-year overall survival (OS) and pelvic, extrapelvic and PALN recurrence rates were 87.7% vs 60.8% (p=0.019), 10.9% vs 25.3% (p=0.119), 18.1% vs 45.8% (p=0.011), and 0% vs 30.4% (p=0.005), respectively, between the EFRT and WPRT groups. Multivariate analysis revealed that EFRT and 2018 FIGO stage IV disease status were significant predictors of OS and extrapelvic recurrence. Conclusion: Compared to WPRT, EFRT significantly improved OS and reduced extrapelvic and PALN recurrence in patients with cervical cancer with high-risk recurrence features.
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.