Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40014217›Full record

ReviewCurrent treatment options in oncology2025

Gynecologic Cancer Screening and Prevention: State of the Science and Practice.

C Tran, H Diaz-Ayllon, D Abulez, S Chinta, M Y Williams-Brown, N Desravines

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current treatment options in oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Nanocarrier drug delivery systems for gynecological cancer therapeutics.Journal of controlled release : official journal of the Controlled Release Society · 2025
    Review
  3. Review
  4. 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

6 authors.

C TranDepartment of Women's Health, University of Texas at Austin Dell Medical School, Austin, TX, USA.
H Diaz-AyllonDepartment of Women's Health, University of Texas at Austin Dell Medical School, Austin, TX, USA.
D AbulezCollege of Medicine, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA.
S ChintaDell Medical School, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA.
M Y Williams-BrownDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Women's Health, University of Texas at Austin Dell Medical School, Health Discovery Building, 1601 N. Trinity Street, Austin, TX, USA.
N DesravinesDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Women's Health, University of Texas at Austin Dell Medical School, Health Discovery Building, 1601 N. Trinity Street, Austin, TX, USA. Nerlyne.desravines@austin.utexas.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

opinion statementGynecological cancers, including cervical, endometrial, ovarian, and vulvovaginal cancer, have increasing incidence and mortality globally over the last three decades. In that time, there have been advances in medical therapies and paradigm shifts in surgical treatment which have resulted in a greater quality of life for patients. Clinicians have also refocused efforts to preventing gynecologic cancer. The state of screening and prevention is varied in each of the cancer types. The most comprehensive screening program and only preventable gynecological cancer is cervical cancer, which has been heavily studied since the 1900s. Cervical cytology, primary high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) testing only, and co-testing are all effective in detecting cervical dysplasia and touted by the major medical. An additional arsenal is prevention through vaccination which has been shown to decrease cervical cancer. Unfortunately, the other gynecological cancers do not have effective screening strategies. The high rates of symptoms in endometrial cancer facilitate detection at an early stage but thus far, asymptomatic screening is only advocated in very high-risk population due to the invasive nature. Novel non-invasive mechanisms are currently under study though none have translated into clinical practice as of yet. Ovarian cancer remains the most innocuous with vague symptoms at onset resulting in late-stage diagnosis. Recommendations for prophylactic oophorectomy only apply to subsets of the population with predisposing genetic mutations. This has led to an ardent push for creative strategies such as opportunistic salpingectomy and a national genetic screening program. These efforts are in addition to the investigations underway researching radiologic, liquid biopsy, and genetic marker screening modalities for all gynecologic cancer. This review article discusses the state of screening, prevention, and recent advancements and pilot studies for each gynecological cancer.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerGenital Neoplasms, FemaleFemaleHumansMass ScreeningPapillomavirus InfectionsCervical cancerEndometrial cancerGynecological cancerOvarian cancerPreventionScreening

Identifiers

PMID40014217

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.