Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39272849›Full record

ReviewCancers2024

Conservative Management of Vulvar Cancer-Where Should We Draw the Line?

Neville F Hacker, Ellen L Barlow

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cancers, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
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

2 authors.

Neville F HackerSchool of Women's and Children's Health, Faculty of Medicine & Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney 2052, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1445-2302
Ellen L BarlowGynaecological Cancer Research Group, School of Women' and Children's Health, Faculty of Medicine & Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney 2052, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Vulvar cancer is a rare disease, and cure rates were low until the mid-20th century. The introduction of an en bloc radical vulvectomy and bilateral groin and pelvic lymph node dissection saw them rise from 15-20% to 60-70%. However, this very radical surgery was associated with high physical and psychological morbidity. Wounds were usually left open to granulate, and the average post-operative hospital stay was about 90 days. Many attempts have been made to decrease morbidity without compromising survival. Modifications that have proven to be successful are as follows: (i) the elimination of routine pelvic node dissection, (ii) the use of separate incisions for groin dissection, (iii) the use of unilateral groin dissection for lateral, unifocal lesions, (iv) and radical local excision with 1 cm surgical margins for unifocal lesions. Sentinel node biopsy with ultrasonic groin surveillance for patients with node-negative disease has been the most recent modification and is advocated for patients whose primary cancer is <4 cm in diameter. Controversy currently exists around the need for 1 cm surgical margins around all primary lesions and on the appropriate ultrasonic surveillance for patients with negative sentinel nodes.

Indexed as

pelvic lymph node dissectionradical local excisionradical vulvectomysentinel node biopsysurgical marginsultrasonic groin surveillancevulvar cancer

Identifiers

PMID39272849
PMCPMC11394072

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.