ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2025
Simple Hysterectomy as a Viable Alternative to Radical Hysterectomy for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer: A Population-Based Cohort Study.
Article in Annals of surgical 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.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to assess the effect of simple hysterectomy compared with radical hysterectomy on cancer-specific survival and overall survival for patients with early-stage cervical cancer.
methodsA retrospective cohort study analyzed patients in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database with a diagnosis of early-stage cervical carcinoma (tumor size ≤2 cm, no lymph node metastasis, and no distant metastasis) from 2004 to 2015. After 1:1 propensity score-matching, the patients who underwent simple hysterectomy were compared those who had radical hysterectomy. All variables underwent propensity score-matching and were included in a multivariate COX regression analysis. The primary outcomes were cancer-specific survival and overall survival at the end of the follow-up period.
resultsThe inclusion criteria was met by 5144 patients, of whom 2454 (47.7 %) underwent radical hysterectomy and 2690 (52.3 %) underwent simple hysterectomy. After propensity score-matching, the study enrolled 2116 patients in each group. There was no statistically significant difference in cancer-specific survival (hazard ratio [HR], 1.00; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 0.76-1.32; p = 0.985) or overall survival (HR, 0.90; 95 % CI, 0.76-1.08; p = 0.256) between the patients who underwent simple hysterectomy and those who underwent radical hysterectomy. Subgroup analysis did not show statistically significant differences in cancer-specific survival or overall survival according to hysterectomy type. Multivariate COX regression analysis showed that hysterectomy type was not an independent prognostic factor for cancer-specific survival (p = 0.707) or overall survival (p = 0.103).
conclusionPatients with early-stage cervical cancer could undergo less radical surgery without a negative effect on their oncologic outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40413332What 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.