ArticleArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2026
Prognostic comparison of fertility-sparing surgery and hysterectomy in early-stage ovarian clear cell carcinoma: a population-based analysis.
Article in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis investigation aimed to assess the applicability of fertility-sparing surgery (FSS) for early-stage ovarian clear cell carcinoma (OCCC) while examining the clinical requirements for lymph node dissection and adjuvant chemotherapy. SUBJECTS: A total of 849 stage I patients were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. Survival outcomes were evaluated through Kaplan-Meier methodology for both overall survival (OS) and disease-specific survival (DSS). Prognostic determinants were examined using multivariate regression modeling.
resultsAmong the 849 patients, 84.3% (716 cases) underwent hysterectomy, and 15.7% (133 cases) received FSS. No significant difference was found in OS (90.6% vs. 87.2%, P = 0.257) or DSS (91.6% vs. 87.7%, P = 0.302) between FSS and hysterectomy cohort. Tumor diameter > 10 cm, stage IC and lymphadenectomy were independent prognostic factors for patients with stage I OCCC. Among patients with a tumor diameter ≤ 10 cm, those who underwent FSS had better OS (97.9% vs. 88.3%, P = 0.034) and DSS (97.9% vs. 88.3%, P = 0.044) than those who received hysterectomy. In stage IA patients, there were no significant differences in prognosis between the two operations. Neither lymphadenectomy nor chemotherapy did not demonstrate superior prognosis in the FSS cohort, whereas chemotherapy was associated with inferior OS (93.5% vs. 84.9%, P = 0.007) and DSS (93.5% vs. 85.5%, P = 0.007) in the hysterectomy cohort.
conclusionFor patients with stage IC OCCC and a tumor diameter > 10 cm, the selection of FSS should be approached with caution. Given the limitations of the SEER database, larger-scale prospective cohort studies are required to validate the influence of lymphadenectomy and postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy on the prognosis of patients undergoing FSS.
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.