ArticleGynecologic oncology reports2025
Evaluation of reproductive and oncological outcomes after fertility-sparing surgery in cervical cancer patients with tumor > 2 cm.
Article in Gynecologic oncology reports, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/objectives: We aimed to evaluate the reproductive and oncological outcomes of patients who underwent fertility-sparing surgery (FSS) despite being considered suboptimal candidates due to tumor size > 2 cm with or without lymph node metastasis. Methods: Between September 2008 and November 2021, 120 patients with early-stage cervical cancer patients who wished to preserve their fertility, were treated in our center. Out of these, 18 patients were not optimal candidates for FSS according to current guidelines. Despite our proposed radical treatment, these patients insisted on having a fertility-sparing treatment. The primary objective was to evaluate the reproductive outcomes including the method of conception, postoperative pregnancy rate, fertility preservation rate, live birth rate, and preterm delivery rate, while the secondary objective was to evaluate 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) and 5-year overall survival (OS). Results: Out of 18 patients, 5 had lymph node metastasis and 2 of them declined adjuvant chemoradiation. Fertility sparing treatment was successful in 14/18 (77.8 %) patients. Out of the 14, 64.3 % (9/14) tried to conceive, resulting in 2 successful deliveries after in vitro fertilization resulting a live birth rate of 22.2. After a median follow-up of 143.3 months (95 % CI 66-169), the 5-year DFS and OS were 83.3 % (66.1-100) and 93.3 % (80.7-100), respectively. Conclusions: This study highlights the possibility of FSS in patients with suboptimal tumor characteristics for fertility preservation while providing acceptable oncologic outcomes. We found that classical barriers to FSS can be challenged, balancing fertility preservation and oncological outcomes, and argue for personalized approaches to cervical cancer treatment, respecting patient priorities. Further prospective studies are warranted to establish the efficacy and safety of such approaches.
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.