Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39007068›Full record

ArticleEClinicalMedicine2024

Oncologic outcomes after Total Mesometrial Resection (TMMR) or treatment according to current international guidelines in FIGO (2009) stages IB1-IIB cervical cancer: an observational cohort study.

Henrik Falconer, Anna Norberg-Hardie, Sahar Salehi, Emilia Alfonzo, Laura Weydandt, Nadja Dornhöfer, Benjamin Wolf, Michael Höckel, Bahriye Aktas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

9 authors.

Henrik FalconerDepartment of Pelvic Cancer, Karolinska University Hospital and the Department of Women's and Children's Health, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Anna Norberg-HardieDepartment of Pelvic Cancer, Karolinska University Hospital and the Department of Women's and Children's Health, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Sahar SalehiDepartment of Pelvic Cancer, Karolinska University Hospital and the Department of Women's and Children's Health, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Emilia AlfonzoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital and Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Laura WeydandtDepartment of Gynecology, University Hospital Leipzig and Leipzig School of Radical Pelvic Surgery, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.
Nadja DornhöferDepartment of Gynecology, University Hospital Leipzig and Leipzig School of Radical Pelvic Surgery, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.
Benjamin WolfDepartment of Gynecology, University Hospital Leipzig and Leipzig School of Radical Pelvic Surgery, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.
Michael HöckelDepartment of Gynecology, University Hospital Leipzig and Leipzig School of Radical Pelvic Surgery, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.
Bahriye AktasDepartment of Gynecology, University Hospital Leipzig and Leipzig School of Radical Pelvic Surgery, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: According to international guidelines, standard treatment (ST) with curative intent in cervical cancer (CC) comprises radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy in early stages (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2009 IB1, IIA1), adjuvant chemoradiation is recommended based on risk factors upon final pathology. Definitive chemoradiation is recommended in locally advanced stages (FIGO 2009 IB2, IIA2, IIB). Total mesometrial resection (TMMR) with therapeutic lymph node dissection (tLND) without adjuvant radiation has emerged as a promising treatment. Here we compare oncologic outcome by TMMR + tLND or ST. Methods: In this observational cohort study, women treated according to international guidelines were identified in the population-based registries from Sweden and women treated with TMMR were identified in the Leipzig Mesometrial Resection (MMR) Study Database (DRKS 0001517) 2011-2020. Relevant clinical and tumour related variables were extracted. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) by ST or TMMR was analysed with log-rank test, cumulative incidence function and proportional hazard regression yielding hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), adjusted for relevant confounders. Findings: Between 2011 and 2020, 1007 women were included in the final analysis. 733 women were treated according to ST and 274 with TMMR. RFS at five years was 77.9% (95% CI 74.3-81.1) and 82.6% (95% CI 77.2-86.9) for the ST and TMMR cohorts respectively (p = 0.053). In early-stage CC, RFS was higher after TMMR as compared to ST, 91.2% Interpretation: Compared to ST, TMMR without radiation therapy was associated with superior oncologic outcomes in women with early-stage cervical cancer whereas no difference was observed in locally advanced disease. Our findings together with previous evidence suggest that TMMR may be considered the primary option for both early-stage and locally advanced cervical cancer confined to the Müllerian compartment. Funding: This study was supported by grants from Centre for Clinical Research Sörmland (Sweden) and Region Stockholm (Sweden).

Indexed as

Cancer field surgeryCervical cancerRadical hysterectomyTMMR

Identifiers

PMID39007068
PMCPMC11245980

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.