ArticleArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2025
Should all cervical cancer patients with positive lymph node receive definitive radiotherapy: a population-based comparative study.
Article in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2025. 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.
- Review
- Debunking Myths and Misinformation in Cervical Cancer: A Narrative Review on Navigating Complex Treatment Choices in Locally Advanced Cases and Exploring Beyond Standard Protocols.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
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
Abstract
objectiveThe optimal initial management strategy for cervical cancer with lymph node metastases (LNM) remains a topic of ongoing debate. This study aimed to explore the correlation between surgery followed by postoperative radiotherapy (PORT) and definitive radiotherapy (RT), as well as their impact on the prognosis of patients with LNM.
methodsPatients with positive lymph nodes (PLNs) in 2009 FIGO stage I-III cervical cancer were selected from SEER database. Kaplan-Meier and log-rank analysis were utilized to assess survival outcomes. Cox and Interaction analyses were employed to compare the survival benefits.
results2936 patients were included in this study. Multivariate analysis revealed the choice of primary treatment significantly impacted both cancer-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS), serving as an independent prognostic factor for patients with LNM. After adjusting for imbalanced variables, surgery plus PORT exhibited significant improvements in CSS and OS in the stage I-II and PLNs ≤ 5 subgroups. However, no statistically significant difference was observed between the two treatment modalities in stage III and PLNs > 5 subgroups. Through interaction analysis, it was observed that stage I-II and PLNs ≤ 5 subgroups exhibited a significant survival benefit from surgery plus PORT.
conclusionSurgery plus PORT could lead to improved outcomes for cervical cancer in patients with stage I-II or PLNs ≤ 5. However, this approach did not apply to patients with stage III or PLNs > 5. Therefore, a comprehensive assessment of LNM and local tumor spread should guide rationalized treatment modalities when managing patients presenting LNM.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39751823What 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.