ArticleCancers2026
FIGO 2018 Versus Ontogenetic Staging for Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer: An International Multicenter Cohort Study Comparing the Two Classifications and Their Prognostic Implications.
Article in Cancers, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectiveThe aim of this study was to compare two different staging systems (FIGO 2018 and ontogenetic staging) for cervical cancer in a locally advanced setting and to determine which one provides better prognostic stratification and a stronger association with oncological outcomes.
methodsA multicenter retrospective cohort study was conducted in patients with cervical cancer (FIGO 2018 stages IIB-IVA) primarily treated with chemoradiotherapy. The primary endpoint was the difference in accuracy for predicting cancer-specific survival at 3 years between the ontogenetic tumor staging system and the FIGO 2018 staging system. Secondary endpoints assessed the same difference in prognostic power with respect to recurrence-free survival and overall survival.
resultsOf 341 patients with locally advanced cervical cancer, the ontogenetic tumor staging system demonstrated superior prognostic performance compared to the FIGO 2018 system. The ontogenetic system showed clear separation of Kaplan-Meier curves for recurrence-free, overall, and cancer-specific survival, unlike the overlapping FIGO 2018 survival curves. Multivariable Cox models controlling clinicopathological factors revealed a progressive, significant worsening of cancer-specific survival across ontogenetic tumor (oT) stages, which was not observed with FIGO staging. Formal comparisons using Harrell's C-index, time-dependent areas under the curve (AUC), and Akaike's information criterion confirmed the ontogenetic model's significantly better discriminative ability and fit. Furthermore, ontogenetic staging provided significant risk stratification within the FIGO IIIC nodal-positive group and among patients with parametrial invasion, demonstrating its refined prognostic utility.
conclusionsOntogenetic tumor staging can be effectively applied using imaging alone and was superior to the FIGO 2018 classification in this study.
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.