ReviewCancers2025
Current Updates on Surgical Management of Patients with Early-Stage Cervical Cancer.
Review in Cancers, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Impact of adjuvant therapy after radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer on mortality and recurrence: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Vaginal Cuff Closure with a Figure-of-Eight Suture in Total Laparoscopic Hysterectomy: Outcome from 173 Consecutive Cases.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Observational
- Advances in the Surgical Management of Cervical Cancer.Cancers · 2026Review
- Nodal surgery in early-stage cervical cancer: the PHENIX trial and the road ahead.Journal of gynecologic oncology · 2025Article
- Minimally invasive surgery in gynecologic oncology: a narrative review of controversies and clinical implications.Gynecology and pelvic medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The recommended treatment for early-stage cervical cancer (FIGO 2018 stages IA-IB2 and selected IIA1) is surgery, followed by either observation or adjuvant therapy, based on individual risk factors. Surgical management has evolved from extensive radical procedures to more conservative strategies, allowing for fertility-preserving options in appropriately selected patients. In 2018, a landmark study (LACC trial) evaluated the surgical approach to radical hysterectomy, comparing open vs. minimally invasive surgery. The results demonstrated that minimally invasive surgery was associated with worse disease-free and overall survival, leading to guidelines changes that recommend the open radical hysterectomy as the new standard of care. More recently, results from the prospective randomized SHAPE trial demonstrated that in well-selected patients with low-risk early-stage cervical cancer, recurrence rates are comparable between simple hysterectomy and radical hysterectomy. An ongoing study, the CONTESSA trial, is evaluating the role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the setting of fertility preservation for lesions measuring 2-4 cm. In addition, ongoing studies are evaluating different surgical approaches for both simple hysterectomy (LASH trial) and radical hysterectomy (ROCC/GOG-3043 and RACC trials), with a focus on comparing oncologic outcomes. Attention has also turned to refining lymph node assessment. Sentinel lymph node biopsy has become a standard staging strategy with reduced morbidity. The SENTICOL I-II and SENTIX/ENGOT-Cx2 trials support its safety and diagnostic accuracy in early-stage disease. This article offers a comprehensive overview of recently published prospective trials that have shaped clinical practice in the management of early-stage cervical cancer. It focuses on surgical approaches and radicality, the role of sentinel lymph node mapping, and fertility-sparing treatments. The review further draws attention to ongoing investigations and novel studies that may influence future directions in the field.
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.