ArticleJournal of gynecologic oncology2025
Different surgical methods for FIGO stage IVB cervical cancer patients receiving chemotherapy: a population-based study.
Article in Journal of gynecologic oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
objectiveTo assess survival differences between non-extensive surgery (NES) and extensive surgery (ES) in International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage IVB cervical cancer patients receiving chemotherapy from a population-based database, the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results.
methodsPropensity matching was conducted to minimize heterogeneity. Survival analysis was performed by the Kaplan-Meier method, log-rank test, and Cox proportional hazards model.
resultsA total of 154 patients met screening criteria, among whom 84 patients (84/154) underwent NES while 70 patients (70/154) underwent ES. After matching, no survival advantage was observed in ES group compared with NES group (p=0.066; hazard ratio [HR]=1.54; 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.97-2.42). Stratified analyses suggested ES prolonged overall survival in patients with histology other than squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma (p=0.028; HR=0.36; 95% CI=0.15-0.89) and American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) T stage T1 (p=0.009; HR=0.18; 95% CI=0.05-0.66). Despite no survival benefit after regional lymph node surgery (p=0.629; HR=0.88; 95% CI=0.53-1.47), subgroup analyses demonstrated that patients younger than 50 (p=0.006; HR=0.21; 95% CI=0.07-0.64), with AJCC T stage T1 (p=0.002; HR=0.09; 95% CI=0.02-0.42), T3 (p=0.001; HR=0.02; 95% CI=0.00-0.21), hematogenous metastasis (p=0.036; HR=0.27; 95% CI=0.08-0.92) and without surgery of other sites (p
conclusionIn conclusion, ES or regional lymph node surgery may provide survival advantage for certain subgroup of FIGO IVB cervical cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. However, it deserves large scale prospective clinical trials to confirm.
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.