ArticleBMC cancer2025
Comparison of oncological outcomes and complication rate between radical hysterectomy and concurrent chemoradiotherapy in stage IIICr cervical cancer without parametrial invasion.
Article in BMC cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- DWI-derived intratumoral, peritumoral, and habitat features for preoperative prediction of lymph node metastasis in early-stage cervical cancer using machine learning method.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Article
- Treatment Patterns and Decision Drivers in Chinese Patients with Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer: Results from a National Physician Survey.Advances in therapy · 2026Article
- Preoperative prediction of parametrial invasion in early-stage cervical cancer: a radiomics nomogram fusing multi-parametric MRI and clinical biomarkers.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Article
- The impact of sequential chemoradiotherapy versus concurrent chemoradiotherapy on prognosis in adjuvant treatment after radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer.World journal of surgical oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to compare oncological outcomes and complication rates between radical hysterectomy (RH) and concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) in patients with stage IIICr cervical cancer without parametrial invasion, based on differing treatment protocols at two institutions.
methodsA total of 106 patients with biopsy-confirmed cervical cancer and lymph node metastasis detected on pretreatment imaging, but without evidence of parametrial invasion, were enrolled. Of these, 55 patients underwent RH, while 51 patients received CCRT. Oncological outcomes, complication rates, and recurrence patterns were analyzed and compared between the two groups.
resultsAt a median follow-up of 62 months (range, 3-220 months), there were no statistically significant differences in disease-free survival or overall survival between the RH and CCRT groups (p = 0.7788 and p = 0.8757, respectively). However, the incidence of overall complications was significantly higher in the RH group compared to the CCRT group (54.5% vs. 19.6%, p < 0.0001). The RH group also demonstrated a significantly greater frequency of major complications (Clavien-Dindo grade III/IV: 23.6% vs. 3.9%, p < 0.0001). Patterns of recurrence differed between the groups: the RH group exhibited a higher rate of distant metastases (56.2% vs. 16.3%), whereas the CCRT group showed a higher incidence of local recurrence (64.3% vs. 25.0%, p = 0.026).
conclusionThere were no significant differences in disease-free or overall survival between patients treated with RH and those treated with CCRT. However, RH was associated with a significantly higher rate of complications. Given these findings, CCRT may represent a more favorable treatment option for patients with stage IIICr cervical cancer without parametrial invasion.
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.