Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40386500›Full record

ArticleGeburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde2025

Evaluation of Baseline Characteristics and Therapeutic Management Strategies in Metastatic Cervical Cancer in Germany: A Multicentric Retrospective Longitudinal Observational Study: A Quality Assurance Initiative of the AGO-Study Group and AGO-OK Uterus.

Dominik Denschlag, Bastian Czogalla, Florian Heitz, Markus Kerkmann, Laura-Christin Fangmann, Philip H Klecker, Frederik A Stuebs, Linn Wölber, Julia Radosa, Pia C Lodde and 25 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

35 authors.

Dominik DenschlagHochtaunuskliniken Bad Homburg, Bad Homburg, Germany.
Bastian CzogallaKlinik und Poliklinik für Frauenheilkunde und Geburtshilfe, LMU Klinikum, LMU München, München, Germany.
Florian HeitzEvangelische Kliniken Essen-Mitte, Essen, Germany.
Markus KerkmannMMF Research GmbH, Münster, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-7151-5875
Laura-Christin FangmannMedizinische Hochschule Hannover, Hannover, Germany.
Philip H KleckerJohannes-Gutenberg Universität Mainz, Mainz, Germany.
Frederik A StuebsUniversitätsklinikum Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-0729-2064
Linn WölberUniversitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Julia RadosaUniversitätsklinken des Saarlandes, Homburg/Saar, Germany.
Pia C LoddeKlinik für Gynäkologie und gynäkologische Onkologie, Universitätsklinikum Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Stephan SeitzKlinik für Frauenheilkunde und Geburtshilfe der Universität Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.
Christian GeorgeUniversitätsfrauenklinik und Poliklinik am Klinikum Südstadt, Rostock, Germany.
Pawel MachUniversitätsklinikum Essen, Essen, Germany.
Angelina FinkUniversitätsklinikum Ulm, Ulm, Germany.
Davit BokhuaUniversitätsklinikum Jena, Jena, Germany.
Nikolaus deGregorioKlinikum am Gesundbrunnen, Heilbronn, Germany.
Björn LampeStädtische Klinik Elisabeth Krankenhaus Mönchengladbach, Mönchengladbach, Germany.
Franziska HemptenmacherUniversitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein Campus Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany.
Verena FriebeUniversitätsklinikum Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Markus FleischLandesfrauenklinik, Helios-Universitätsklinikum Wuppertal, Wuppertal, Germany.
Pauline WimbergerTechnische Universität Dresden und NCT Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Anna JaegerUniversitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf/Onkologisches Therapiezentrum Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.
Andreas SchnelzerRoMed-Klinikum Rosenheim, Rosenheim, Germany.
Suzana MittelstadtDiakonie Klinikum Schwäbisch Hall, Schwäbisch Hall, Germany.
Dominik RatiuUniversitäts-Frauenklinik Köln, Köln, Germany.
Michael EichbaumHelios Dr.-Horst-Schmidt-Kliniken Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden, Germany.
Adriana HausGPR Klinikum Rüsselsheim, Rüsselsheim, Germany.
Matthias KalderUniversitätsklinikum Marburg, Marburg, Germany.
Beyhan AtasevenUniversitätsklinik für Frauenheilkunde und Geburtshilfe, Universität Bielefeld, Medizinische Fakultät und Universitätsklinikum OWL, Klinikum Lippe, Detmold, Germany.
Willibald SchröderGynaekologicum Bremen, Bremen, Germany.
Holger BrongerKlinikum rechts der Isar Technische Universität München, München, Germany.
Jens KosseSana Klinikum Offenbach, Offenbach, Germany.
Uwe Andreas UlrichMartin-Luther-Krankenhaus Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Gabriele ElserAGO Studiengruppe, Wiesbaden, Germany.
Philipp HarterEvangelische Kliniken Essen-Mitte, Essen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Real-world data on treatment patterns and outcomes in recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer (r/mCC) are lacking. Methods: This first national quality assurance initiative was a retrospective analysis of patients with r/mCC diagnosed between 2018 and 2022, who were identified from medical records of 31 gynecologic cancer centers in Germany. Patient demographic and clinical characteristics, treatment patterns, and clinical outcomes were assessed descriptively. Progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Results: A total of 503 eligible patients (median age 55 years) were analyzed for r/mCC. 276/503 patients (55%) received first-line (1L) chemotherapy (platinum combination: 247/276; 79%) followed by targeted antibody therapy with bevacizumab (177/247; 72%), immunotherapy (19/247; 8%), or both combined (50/247; 20%). 111/503 (22%) received chemotherapy only (platinum combination: 64/111; 58%, platinum mono: 35/111; 31%, or platinum-free: 12/111; 11%), and 110/503 (22%) did not receive any systemic treatment (the remaining 6/503 patients received immunotherapy only). For these subgroups after a median follow-up of 16 months, the PFS was 12 months (95% CI 11-14), 8.8 months (95% CI 7.1-11), and 3 months (95% CI 2.3-4.8), and OS was 25 months (95% CI 21-31), 17 months (95% CI 14-22), and 3.6 months (95% CI 2.8-5.3), respectively. 176/283 (62%) patients who developed progressive disease (PD) were treated with second-line (2L) therapy. Conclusion: Only half of the patients with r/mCC were treated 1L with platinum-combination therapy including antibody therapy according to national guidelines. Moreover, 22% at initial diagnosis and 38% of patients at PD were not treated with systemic therapy at all. This might reflect poor general performance status, patients' preference, and/or lack of effective therapies especially in 2L treatment.

Indexed as

metastatic cervical cancerquality assurancereal-world data

Identifiers

PMID40386500
PMCPMC12081097

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.