ArticleInternational journal of clinical oncology2026
Evaluation of neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by radical hysterectomy in cervical cancer: a single-center study.
Article in International journal of clinical 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe efficacy of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) before radical hysterectomy (RH) in cervical cancer remains unclear. We evaluated stage-specific outcomes of NACT-RH at a high-volume center.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study included patients with non-metastatic cT1b1-2b cervical cancer who underwent RH between 2013 and 2022. For cT1b cases, prognostic outcomes were compared between patients with cT1b3 (any N) who underwent NACT-RH (High-risk, NACT(+)) and those with cT1b1-1b2 N0 who underwent primary RH (Low-risk, NACT(-)), using propensity score matching. For cT2 cases, NACT-RH versus primary RH was compared using inverse probability weighting to adjust for baseline differences.
resultsAmong 191 patients who underwent RH (cT1: n = 99; cT2: n = 92), the matched cT1 cohort comprised 15 High-risk, NACT(+) and 30 Low-risk, NACT(-) patients. Five-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 75.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 53.4-100.0%) versus 89.9% (95% CI, 79.6-100.0%) (p = 0.427). Overall survival (OS) was 100% in both groups with a median follow-up of > 70 months. In cT2, NACT-RH (n = 73) versus primary RH (n = 19) showed hazard ratios of 2.88 for PFS (95% CI, 0.69-11.97) and 5.64 for OS (95% CI, 0.70-45.35) after baseline adjustment. Among cT2 patients who underwent NACT-RH, PFS and OS were worse in those without an objective response to NACT (n = 18, all cT2b) than in responders.
conclusionNACT-RH was associated with encouraging long-term outcomes in cT1b3, whereas outcomes in cT2 cases remain uncertain, supporting careful selection and response-adapted strategies.
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.