Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39815053›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of clinical oncology2025

Re-evaluating prognostic factors for cervical cancer with lymph node metastasis: a Japanese multicenter cohort study based on FIGO 2018.

Kohei Hamada, Koji Yamanoi, Nobutaka Hayashi, Yasushi Kotani, Hisanori Matsumoto, Naoki Horikawa, Kaoru Abiko, Yukio Yamanishi, Yoko Iemura, Mana Taki and 4 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of clinical oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
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

14 authors.

Kohei HamadaDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, 54 Kawahara-Cho, Shogoin, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, 606-8507, Japan.
Koji YamanoiDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, 54 Kawahara-Cho, Shogoin, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, 606-8507, Japan. kojiymni@kuhp.kyoto-u.ac.jp.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1240-5422
Nobutaka HayashiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kobe City Medical Center General Hospital, Hyogo, Japan.
Yasushi KotaniDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kindai University Faculty of Medicine, Osaka, Japan.
Hisanori MatsumotoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, National Hospital Organization Osaka National Hospital, Osaka, Japan.
Naoki HorikawaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kurashiki Central Hospital, Okayama, Japan.
Kaoru AbikoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, National Hospital Organization Kyoto Medical Center, Kyoto, Japan.
Yukio YamanishiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Japanese Red Cross Wakayama Medical Center, Wakayama, Japan.
Yoko IemuraDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kyoto Katsura Hospital, Kyoto, Japan.
Mana TakiDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, 54 Kawahara-Cho, Shogoin, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, 606-8507, Japan.
Ryusuke MurakamiDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, 54 Kawahara-Cho, Shogoin, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, 606-8507, Japan.
Ken YamaguchiDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, 54 Kawahara-Cho, Shogoin, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, 606-8507, Japan.
Junzo HamanishiDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, 54 Kawahara-Cho, Shogoin, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, 606-8507, Japan.
Masaki MandaiDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, 54 Kawahara-Cho, Shogoin, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, 606-8507, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn 2018, the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) revised its cervical cancer staging system to enhance clinical relevance, notably by categorizing lymph node metastases (LNM) as an independent stage IIIC. This multicenter study evaluates the prognostic implications of the FIGO 2018 classification within a Japanese cohort.

methodsThis study included 1468 patients with cervical cancer. Initial FIGO 2009 stages were restaged under FIGO 2018. Stage IIIC was further compared based on the location of LNM (pelvic or para-aortic, i.e., IIIC1 and IIIC2, respectively), local tumor stage, and histology.

resultsA total of 345 cases (27.4%) were upstaged to stage IIIC, which exhibited a poorer prognosis compared to stage II (HR, 2.12; 95% CI 1.29 - 3.48; p = 0.004) and better than stage IIIAB (HR, 0.46; 95% CI 0.27 - 0.78; p = 0.004). Notably, stage IIIC2 showed a significantly worse prognosis than IIIC1 (HR, 2.32; 95% CI 1.37 - 3.93; p = 0.003). Subdivisions of stage IIIC1 (T1, T2, and T3AB) displayed significantly varied prognoses, with the prognosis for IIIC1-T3AB similar to that of stage IIIAB. In contrast, all subdivisions of IIIC2 showed uniformly poor outcomes. Multivariate analysis of stage IIIC patients revealed that para-aortic LNM, adenocarcinoma and adenosquamous carcinoma histology, and local T3AB tumor remained significant.

conclusionsThe classification of para-aortic LNM as stage IIIC2 has proven to be of critical relevance in the Japanese cohort. However, the prognostic impact of stage IIIC1 remains influenced by local tumor factors and histological subtypes.

Indexed as

Lymph NodesUterine Cervical NeoplasmsAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCohort StudiesEast Asian PeopleFemaleHumansJapanLymphatic MetastasisMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingPrognosisCervical cancerFIGOInternational federation of gynecology and obstetricsLymph nodePrognosisStaging

Identifiers

PMID39815053

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.