Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40165389›Full record

ArticleJournal of gynecologic oncology2025

Radical hysterectomy or chemoradiotherapy for clinically early-stage cervical cancer with suspicious lymph nodes on imaging: a retrospective cohort study.

Ester P Olthof, Hans H B Wenzel, Marissa C van Maaren, Jacobus van der Velden, Anje M Spijkerboer, Ruud L M Bekkers, Jogchum J Beltman, Brigitte F M Slangen, Hans W Nijman, Ramon G V Smolders and 6 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of gynecologic 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.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

16 authors.

Ester P OlthofDepartment of Research and Development, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation (IKNL), Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-1941-7693
Hans H B WenzelDepartment of Research and Development, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation (IKNL), Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-4502-2724
Marissa C van MaarenDepartment of Research and Development, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation (IKNL), Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-5708-2559
Jacobus van der VeldenDepartment of Gynecological Oncology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Center for Gynecologic Oncology Amsterdam (CGOA), Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-5985-1163
Anje M SpijkerboerDepartment of Radiology, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0009-0005-1972-8477
Ruud L M BekkersDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-4577-8495
Jogchum J BeltmanDepartment of Gynecology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-0048-7360
Brigitte F M SlangenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical Center and GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-2811-3851
Hans W NijmanDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-1821-3042
Ramon G V SmoldersDepartment of Gynecological Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-5407-0878
Nienke E van TrommelCenter for Gynecologic Oncology Amsterdam (CGOA), The Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-3656-947X
Petra L M ZusterzeelDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-9547-6367
Ronald P ZweemerDepartment of Gynecological Oncology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht Cancer Centre, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-1829-7773
Lukas J A StalpersDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-9574-0295
Maaike A van der AaDepartment of Research and Development, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation (IKNL), Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-2934-2704
Constantijne H MomDepartment of Gynecological Oncology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Center for Gynecologic Oncology Amsterdam (CGOA), Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-2838-2031

Funding

DCS IKNL2019-12398
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe optimal treatment of clinically early-stage cervical cancer with suspicious lymph nodes on pretreatment imaging is unclear. Therefore, we aimed to compare surgery (i.e., radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy±adjuvant therapy) with primary chemoradiotherapy as treatment strategies in this patient group regarding recurrence-free, overall survival and toxicity.

methodsWomen diagnosed between 2009-2017 with the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (2009) stage IA-IIA and suspicious nodes based on radiologic assessment of pretreatment imaging were retrospectively selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Cox proportional hazard was used to estimate survival and logistic regression for toxicity. Inverse probability weighting was used to correct for confounding. Grade ≥2 surgery-related (≤30 days) and grade ≥3 chemotherapy or radiotherapy-related (≤6 months) toxicity were collected. Missing data were imputed.

resultsOf 330 patients included, 131 (40%) received surgery (followed by adjuvant therapy in 54%) and 199 (60%) chemoradiotherapy. Pathological nodal status was known in 100% of the surgery group and 32% (n=63) of the chemoradiotherapy group, of whom 43% (56/131) and 89% (56/63), respectively, had metastases. After adjustment for confounders, the recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio [HR]=0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.34-1.31) and overall survival (HR=0.75; 95% CI=0.38-1.47) were not significantly different between both groups, while surgery was associated with more toxicity (odds ratio=2.82; 95% CI=1.42-5.60), mainly surgery-related.

conclusionIn patients with clinically early-stage cervical cancer and suspicious nodes on imaging, surgery and primary chemoradiotherapy yielded comparable results in terms of survival, whereas surgery might be associated with more (surgery-related) short-term toxicity.

Indexed as

ChemoradiotherapyHysterectomyLymph NodesUterine Cervical NeoplasmsAdultAgedChemoradiotherapy, AdjuvantFemaleHumansLymphatic MetastasisLymph Node ExcisionMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingRetrospective StudiesChemoradiotherapyHysterectomyLymph Node MetastasisSurvivalUterine Cervical Cancer

Identifiers

PMID40165389
PMCPMC11964962

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.