ArticleFrontiers in oncology2025
Risk factors for pelvic lymph node metastasis in cervical cancer: a retrospective analysis of 186 patients.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Pelvic lymph node metastasis is a critical factor influencing prognosis and treatment strategies in cervical cancer patients. This study aimed to identify significant clinical and pathological risk factors associated with pelvic lymph node metastasis in patients with cervical cancer. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 186 cervical cancer patients treated at the Affiliated Hospital, Southwest Medical University from January 2010 to December 2020. Patients were divided into two groups: those with pelvic lymph node metastasis (n=40) and those without (n=146). Data on demographics, clinical characteristics, pathological features, and treatment modalities were collected. Statistical analysis included t-tests, chi-square tests, and logistic regression to evaluate potential risk factors for lymph node metastasis. Results: Patients with pelvic lymph node metastasis were significantly older (mean age 52.5 ± 8.3 years) than those without metastasis (mean age 48.7 ± 10.2 years; p=0.023). High-risk HPV positivity was significantly associated with lymph node metastasis (75% vs. 41%, p=0.001). Lymphovascular invasion was observed in 75% of the metastatic group compared to 24.7% in the non-metastatic group (p<0.001). Tumor size >4 cm was more frequent in patients with metastasis (50% vs. 12.3%, p<0.001). Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified high-risk HPV infection (OR 4.13, 95% CI: 2.09-8.17, p<0.001), lymphovascular invasion (OR 7.87, 95% CI: 4.05-15.29, p<0.001), and tumor size >4 cm (OR 6.24, 95% CI: 3.24-12.02, p<0.001) as independent risk factors for pelvic lymph node metastasis. Conclusion: This study identifies several independent risk factors for pelvic lymph node metastasis in cervical cancer, including high-risk HPV infection, lymphovascular invasion, and tumor size greater than 4 cm. These findings can help guide clinical decision-making and individualized treatment planning, improving outcomes for patients with cervical cancer. Further prospective studies are warranted to validate these findings.
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.