SynthesisCancer science2025
Survival Benefit of Surgical Staging Before Radiotherapy in Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer: A Pooled Analysis.
Synthesis in Cancer science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Prognostic value of the lactate dehydrogenase-to-albumin ratio (LAR) combined with clinicopathological indicators for predicting outcomes in locally advanced cervical cancer undergoing concurrent chemoradiotherapy: a retrospective cohort study and nomogram development.American journal of cancer research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Lymph node metastasis significantly impacts prognosis and treatment in locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC). Surgical staging offers precise information on node involvement, though its survival benefit is debated. We pooled data from 9 cohort studies involving 2553 patients to evaluate the benefit of pre-treatment surgical staging in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer. Fixed effects models or random effects models were used to calculate the pooled hazard ratios (HRs). The overall pooled results showed no difference in PFS (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.73-1.22, p = 0.65) or OS (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.74-1.35, p = 0.99) between the two approaches of lymph node staging. However, the subgroup analyses found the PFS superiority of surgical staging in patients with FIGO stage II (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.49-0.95, p = 0.02). Additionally, for the patients with no evidence of lymph node metastasis on imaging, surgical staging was associated with significantly improved PFS (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.56-0.86, p = 0.001) and OS (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.36-0.87, p = 0.01). In the subgroup of patients with suspicious bulky nodes on imaging, lymph node debulking-based surgical staging did not significantly improve either PFS (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.72-1.31, p = 0.31) or OS (HR 1.16, 95% CI 0.68-1.99, p = 0.59) in comparison with imaging staging. Surgical staging may not be applicable to all patients with LACC. However, for the patients with FIGO II disease or those without suspicious lymph node involvement on imaging, node surgery staging could afford a survival benefit. Trial Registration: PROSPERO ID: CRD42024543768.
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.