ArticleCancer medicine2025
Prognostic Differences and Survival Predictive Models for Mucinous Versus Usual-Type Adenocarcinoma of the Uterine Cervix.
Article in Cancer medicine, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere is significant histological heterogeneity between the endocervical adenocarcinoma (EA) subtypes. Usual-type carcinoma (adenocarcinoma) and mucinous carcinoma (mucinous adenocarcinoma, MA) are the most common types of EA.
methodsDemographic and clinical variables were collected from the SEER database for selected patients between 2004 and 2021. The effect of confounding variables was reduced by propensity score matching (PSM). Survival data were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression models. A risk prediction model nomogram for MA was developed and validated.
resultsThe median age for MA patients was 46 years compared to 45 years for adenocarcinoma (p = 0.021). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival (OS) rates for MA were 88.2%, 74.5%, and 68.4%, respectively, significantly lower than those for adenocarcinoma (89.0%, 79.0%, and 74.9%, p < 0.0001). Cancer-specific survival (CSS) showed a similar trend (p < 0.0001). Seven variables, including age, primary site, T, N, combined stage, surgery, and chemotherapy, were selected to create the nomograms for predicting OS, while age, primary site, tumor size, T, N, combined stage, and surgery were selected for CSS. The validations of all predictive models were satisfactory.
conclusionThis study revealed MA's poorer prognosis compared to adenocarcinoma using the SEER database. It developed predictive models for OS and CSS of MA, offering a more accurate prognosis assessment tool for clinical practice.
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.