ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026
Pathological outcomes in women with cervical adenocarcinoma
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the pathological outcomes of conisation with or without subsequent hysterectomy in patients diagnosed with adenocarcinoma Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients diagnosed with AIS and CIN3 who underwent loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP) or cold-knife conisation (CKC) between January 2012 and December 2022. The pathological findings of conisation and subsequent hysterectomy, as well as recurrence rates in patients managed conservatively, were analyzed. Patients were followed for a minimum of 3 years, with recurrence defined as the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) through colposcopy. Results: A total of 387 patients were included: 107 with AIS and 280 with CIN3. Hysterectomy was performed in 72.9% of AIS patients and 49.3% of CIN3 patients after conisation. Positive conisation margins were associated with a higher likelihood of residual disease in hysterectomy specimens, especially in cases with cervical canal involvement in AIS (70.0%) and with combined endo/ectocervical and canal margin involvement in CIN3 (60.0%). In multivariable logistic regression analysis adjusting for age, HPV status, and conisation technique, cervical canal margin involvement was independently associated with positive hysterectomy pathology in AIS (OR 6.962, 95% CI 1.393-34.794; p = 0.018), whereas endo/ectocervical margin involvement was the independent predictor in CIN3 (OR 6.790, 95% CI 1.683-27.387; p = 0.007). The preoperative HPV infection rate was lower in AIS than in CIN3 (88.8% vs 97.1%, p = 0.002). Conclusion: While hysterectomy is recommended for AIS with positive margins, conisation alone may be a safe alternative for selected patients without involvement of the cervical canal margin.
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.