ArticleJAMA network open2025
Surgical Deescalation Within Gynecologic Oncology.
Article in JAMA network open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Global Trends in Surgical Oncology Deescalation Phase III Randomized Trials.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Optimizing pelvic lymph node dissection in bladder cancer: obturator focus, pN1 prognosis, and sentinel node feasibility.International journal of clinical oncology · 2026Article
- Disparities in facility-level adoption of minimally invasive interval debulking surgery for advanced ovarian cancer.Gynecologic oncology · 2025Article
- Current Limitations of Sentinel Node Biopsy in Vulvar Cancer.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025Review
- Error in Figure.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Error in Byline.JAMA network open · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedError in Byline.2025
- Erratum issuedError in Figure.2025
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: The goal of surgical deescalation is to minimize tissue damage, enhance patient outcomes, and reduce the adverse effects often associated with extensive or traditional surgical procedures. This shift toward less invasive techniques has the potential to revolutionize surgical practices, profoundly impacting the methods and training of future surgeons. Objective: To evaluate adoption of surgical deescalation within the field of gynecologic oncology using The National Cancer Database. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used prospectively collected data from the National Cancer Database from January 2004 to December 2020. Eligible participants included women in the US who received a diagnosis of clinical stage I to IV endometrial, ovarian, cervical, or vulvar cancer within this time frame. Data were analyzed between January and June 2024. Exposure: Diagnosis of stage I to IV endometrial, ovarian, cervical, or vulvar cancer. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was surgical deescalation, which included evaluation of receipt of surgical intervention, the surgical approach, the type of lymph node assessment, and salvage interventions for disease-affected organs. A Poisson model was applied to estimate the average annual percentage change (AAPC) in the receipt of surgical treatment. Results: A total of 1 218 490 patients (mean [SD] age at diagnosis, 61.2 [13.7] years) were included. Over the study period, the percentage of patients undergoing surgery decreased from 47.4% to 39.9% for those with cervical cancer (AAPC, -1.3%; 95% CI, -1.6% to -1.1%), from 72.0% to 67.9% for those with ovarian cancer (AAPC, -0.5%; 95% CI, -0.6% to -0.4%), from 83.7% to 79.1% for those with endometrial cancer (AAPC, -0.5%; 95% CI, -0.7% to 11 -0.4%), and from 81.1% to 72.6% for those with vulvar cancer (AAPC, -1.3%; 95% CI, -1.6% to -0.9%). The use of minimally invasive surgery increased from 45.8% to 82.2% for those with endometrial cancer (AAPC, 4.6%; 95% CI, 4.5% to 4.8%) and from 13.3% to 37.0% for those with ovarian cancer (AAPC, 9.4%; 95% CI, 9.0% to 9.7%). Sentinel lymph node dissection increased from 0.7% to 39.6% for patients with endometrial cancer (AAPC, 51.8%; 95% CI, 50.5% to 53.2%), from 0.2% to 10.6% for patients with cervical cancer (AAPC, 44.0%; 95% CI, 39.3% to 48.9%), and from 12.3% to 36.9% for patients with vulvar cancer (AAPC, 10.7%; 95% CI, 8.0% to 13.5%) cancers, whereas the rate of complete lymphadenectomies decreased in all 3 groups. The rate of fertility-sparing surgery for patients with cervical cancer younger than 40 years rose from 17.8% to 28.1% (AAPC, 3.1%; 95% CI, 2.3%-3.9%). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that over the past 15 years, the field of gynecologic oncology has moved toward surgical deescalation through an overall reduction in the number of patients who undergo surgery, increased use of minimally invasive surgical techniques, and increased use of sentinel lymph node techniques. Future research should focus not only on understanding the impact of surgical escalation on patients (including disease outcomes, quality of life, and equitable access to these services), but also on surgical training.
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.