Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40372751›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2025

Long-Term Survival in Patients With Low-Risk Cervical Cancer After Simple, Modified, or Radical Hysterectomy.

Christopher M Tarney, Chunqiao Tian, Leslie M Randall, S Ahmed Hussain, Pouya Javadian, Sean P Cronin, Sara Drayer, John K Chan, Daniel S Kapp, Chad A Hamilton and 9 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

19 authors.

Christopher M TarneyGynecologic Cancer Center of Excellence, Department of Gynecologic Surgery and Obstetrics, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland.
Chunqiao TianGynecologic Cancer Center of Excellence, Department of Gynecologic Surgery and Obstetrics, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland.
Leslie M RandallGynecologic Cancer Center of Excellence, Department of Gynecologic Surgery and Obstetrics, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland.
S Ahmed HussainGynecologic Cancer Center of Excellence, Department of Gynecologic Surgery and Obstetrics, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland.
Pouya JavadianGynecologic Cancer Center of Excellence, Department of Gynecologic Surgery and Obstetrics, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland.
Sean P CroninGynecologic Cancer Center of Excellence, Department of Gynecologic Surgery and Obstetrics, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland.
Sara DrayerGynecologic Cancer Center of Excellence, Department of Gynecologic Surgery and Obstetrics, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland.
John K ChanPalo Alto Medical Foundation, California Pacific Medical Center, Sutter Health, San Francisco, California.
Daniel S KappDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.
Chad A HamiltonGynecologic Oncology Section, Women's Services, The Ochsner Cancer Institute, Ochsner Health, New Orleans, Louisiana.
Charles A LeathDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, O'Neal Comprehensive Cancer Center, Birmingham.
Doris M BenbrookGynecologic Oncology Division, Stephenson Cancer Center, Oklahoma University Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City.
Christina R WashingtonGynecologic Oncology Division, Stephenson Cancer Center, Oklahoma University Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City.
Kathleen N MooreGynecologic Oncology Division, Stephenson Cancer Center, Oklahoma University Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City.
Nicholas W BatemanGynecologic Cancer Center of Excellence, Department of Gynecologic Surgery and Obstetrics, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland.
Thomas P ConradsGynecologic Cancer Center of Excellence, Department of Gynecologic Surgery and Obstetrics, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland.
Neil T PhippenAdvent Health Medical Group, Gynecologic Oncology at Porter, Denver, Colorado.
G Larry MaxwellGynecologic Cancer Center of Excellence, Department of Gynecologic Surgery and Obstetrics, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland.
Kathleen M DarcyGynecologic Cancer Center of Excellence, Department of Gynecologic Surgery and Obstetrics, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland.

Funding

Treatment of HIV- and HIV+ Patients with HPV16+ CIN2/3 Using pNGLV4a-hCRTE6E7L2 DNA vaccine administered intramuscularly via electroporationP50CA098252 · NCI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI TZYY-CHOOU WU · 2003 to 2026
$53.5M
NCI NIH HHS P50 CA098252
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Three-year pelvic recurrence rate in women with low-risk cervical carcinoma was not inferior following simple hysterectomy (SH) vs modified radical hysterectomy (MRH) or radical hysterectomy (RH) in the Simple Hysterectomy and Pelvic Node Assessment randomized clinical trial, but the survival analysis of the trial was underpowered. Objective: To evaluate long-term survival in low-risk cervical carcinoma following SH vs MRH or RH. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included women undergoing SH, MRH or RH in US Commission on Cancer-accredited facilities participating in the National Cancer Database who received a diagnosis between January 2010 and December 2017 of International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2009 stage IA2 or IB1 squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, or adenosquamous carcinoma of the cervix (≤2 cm) and clinically negative lymph nodes. Exposure: SH, MRH, or RH following diagnosis of stage IA2 or IB1 squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, or adenosquamous carcinoma of the cervix. Main Outcomes and Measures: Survival was the primary end point, evaluated with and without propensity score balancing. Survival rates, survival distributions, adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) of death, and restricted mean survival times (RMST) were analyzed as of September 2024. Two multivariable models were fitted. Model 1 included the hysterectomy type and 9 baseline factors (age, comorbidity score, race and ethnicity, insurance status, treatment facility, stage, histologic subtype, tumor grade, and surgical approach). Model 2 included the model 1 variables plus 4 additional clinical factors (surgical margin, LVSI, pathologic LN metastasis, and adjuvant treatment). Results: This cohort study evaluated 2636 women (mean [SD] age, 45.4 [11.4] years; median [IQR] follow-up, 85 [64-110] months), including 982 with SH, 300 with MRH, 927 with traditional RH, and 427 with unspecified MRH or RH. Survival was similar following SH vs MRH or RH (7 year survival rate, 93.9%; 95% CI, 91.9%-95.4% vs 95.3%; 95% CI, 94.0%-96.3%%; P = .07) and SH vs MRH vs RH (7 year survival rate, 93.9%; 95% CI, 91.9%-95.4% vs 94.2%; 95% CI, 90.1%-96.7% vs 95.4%; 95% CI, 93.6%-96.6%; P = .15). Risk of death following either SH vs MRH or RH, SH vs RH, or MRH vs RH remained similar after adjusting for baseline covariates alone or baseline covariates plus clinical factors. Survival remained similar within subsets by age, comorbidity score, race and ethnicity, facility type, stage, histologic subtype, tumor grade, surgical approach, and year of diagnosis. Adjusted survival remained similar in patients with SH vs MRH or RH after propensity score balancing for baseline covariates (aHR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.86-1.65; P = .31) with similar 3-year (98.3%; 95% CI, 97.2%-99.0% vs 97.6%; 95% CI, 96.6%-98.2%), 5-year (95.9%; 95% CI, 94.3%-97.1% vs 96.5%; 95% CI, 95.5%-97.3%), 7-year (94.5%; 95% CI, 92.5%-95.9% vs 95.1%; 95% CI, 93.7%-96.1%), and 10-year (89.8%; 95% CI, 86.3%-92.5% vs 91.7%; 95% CI, 89.4%-93.4%) survival rates. Sensitivity analysis for patients who received a diagnosis between 2010 and 2013 documented similar 10-year RMST following SH vs MRH or RH, SH vs RH, SH vs MRH, and MRH vs RH. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, long-term survival was similar following SH vs MRH or RH, supporting the use of SH in select patients with low-risk early-stage cervical carcinoma.

Indexed as

HysterectomyUterine Cervical NeoplasmsAdenocarcinomaAdultAgedCarcinoma, AdenosquamousCarcinoma, Squamous CellCohort StudiesFemaleHumansMiddle AgedSurvival RateUnited States

Identifiers

PMID40372751
PMCPMC12082373

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.