ArticleBMC women's health2024
Treatment of secondary uterine malignancy following radiotherapy for cervical cancer: a study based on the SEER database.
Article in BMC women's health, 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.
- Cervical cancer prediction using deformable kernel darknet-53 and depth wise separable convolutional neural networks.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Development and validation of the competing risk nomogram and risk classification system for predicting cancer-specific mortality in patients with cervical adenosquamous carcinoma treated via radical hysterectomy.Biomolecules & biomedicine · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRadiotherapy is one of the main treatments for cervical cancer. Long-term complications of radiation exposure include the emergence of secondary tumors. This is a retrospective study based on an American population. We discuss the optimal treatment modality for patients with radiation-induced secondary uterine malignancy based on the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database.
methodsThe study included patients with a definitive pathological diagnosis of cervical cancer who were diagnosed with a uterine malignant tumor ≥ 1 year later. Patients in whom cervical cancer was not the first tumor or patients with missing data were excluded. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed using the COX regression model to screen independent prognostic factors affecting overall survival. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were analyzed using the R software package.
resultsWe screened 142 patients with a secondary uterine malignancy after cervical cancer treatment, 115 patients with a secondary uterine malignancy after radiotherapy, and 27 patients with a secondary uterine malignancy who did not receive radiotherapy. The average latency period for developing a secondary tumor was 8 years, and 57.04% of the patients had a second tumor at ≥ 60 years of age. In patients with a secondary uterine malignancy after radiotherapy, surgery improved the prognosis [hazard ratio (HR), 0.374; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.229-0.612], whereas radiotherapy and chemotherapy did not reduce the risk of death. In the subgroup analysis, the surgery plus chemotherapy group had a significantly better survival prognosis than the other groups (HR, 0.251; 95% CI, 0.122-0.515).
conclusionsThe results suggest that the treatment modality in patients with secondary uterine malignancy after radiotherapy for cervical cancer has a significant impact on survival. The survival outcomes of patients receiving surgery combined with chemotherapy are superior to those of patients receiving other treatments.
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.