ArticleFrontiers in oncology2025
Quality of life in cervical cancer survivors after nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy, conventional radical hysterectomy or concurrent chemoradiotherapy.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multidimensional assessment of urinary dysfunction and quality of life after cervical cancer treatment: a multicenter study integrating urodynamics and patient-reported outcomes.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Response to the Letter to the Editor "Opinion on nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy".Journal of gynecologic oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cervical cancer treatments, including radical hysterectomy and chemoradiotherapy, often lead to urinary, anorectal, and sexual dysfunctions. Nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy (NSRH) aims to reduce such complications, but evidence on long-term quality of life (QoL) remains limited. Objective: To compare QoL outcomes in cervical cancer survivors after NSRH, conventional radical hysterectomy (CRH), or concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCR). Methods: A cross-sectional study enrolled 427 patients (241 NSRH, 60 CRH, 126 CCR) aged ≤60 years with ≥6 months post-treatment follow-up. QoL was assessed using EORTC QLQ-C30/CX24, Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI), and a self-reported questionnaire. Statistical analyses included ANOVA and chi-square tests. Results: Urinary symptoms occurred in 27.4% (NSRH), 40.0% (CRH), and 18.6% (CCR) (*p*=0.004). Anorectal symptoms were reported in 23.2% (NSRH), 25.0% (CRH), and 18.6% (CCR) (*p*=0.360). Among sexually active patients, FSFI total scores were higher in NSRH (23.8) vs. CRH (23.3) and CCR (21.6) (*p*=0.026). NSRH also showed superior sexual desire, arousal, and orgasm scores. QoL scores (EORTC QLQ-C30/CX24) indicated better outcomes in constipation (*p*=0.003), lymphedema (*p*<0.001), and sexual activity (*p*=0.027) for NSRH. Subgroup analysis confirmed NSRH alone had fewer complications than NSRH with adjuvant radiation. Conclusion: NSRH demonstrates significant advantages in preserving urinary, anorectal, and sexual functions, thereby improving QoL compared to CRH or CCR. It is a preferable option for early-stage cervical cancer, particularly in younger patients.
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.