Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41858361›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2026

Sentinel lymph node biopsy versus lymphadenectomy in early-stage cervical cancer: a meta-analysis of oncologic outcomes and surgical morbidity.

Chao Xiao, Siyuan Zeng, Luying Li, Ruiqi Wang, Xue Xiao

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Chao Xiao *Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Siyuan Zeng *Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Luying LiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Ruiqi WangDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Xue XiaoKey Laboratory of Birth Defects and Related Diseases of Women and Children (Sichuan University), Ministry of Education, West China Second Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the oncologic safety of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) compared with systematic lymph node dissection (LND) in patients with early-stage cervical cancer and to determine whether SLNB alone yields comparable survival outcomes. Data sources: Studies published up to October 2025 were systematically searched in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science using relevant keywords, including "sentinel lymph node", "cervical cancer", "cervical carcinoma" and "lymphadenectomy." Study eligibility criteria: Comparative cohort studies and single-arm studies involving patients with early-stage cervical cancer undergoing SLNB, with or without LND, and reporting survival outcomes- including cancer-specific survival (CSS), disease-specific survival (DSS), overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and disease-free survival (DFS) -were included. Study appraisal and synthesis methods: The quality of the included studies was assessed using appropriate tools: the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 (RoB 2) tool for randomized controlled trials, the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for observational studies, and the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) for single-arm or non-randomized studies. All meta-analyses were performed using the meta package in R. Hazard ratios (HRs) and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled using fixed- or random-effects models depending on heterogeneity. Sensitivity analyses were conducted via leave-one-out analysis. Results: The pooled analysis of six comparative studies revealed no significant difference in cancer-specific survival (HR = 0.93, 95% CI: 0.27-3.20), overall survival (HR = 0.92 (95% CI: 0.65-1.31), disease-free survival (HR = 0.99, 95%CI: 0.00-855.48), or progression-free survival (HR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.29-1.05) between the SLNB and LND groups. SLNB was associated with a significantly lower risk of postoperative complications (RR = 0.70, P = 0.0406), and did not increase the recurrence rate (RR = 0.96, 95% CI: 0.36-2.53) compared with LND. Six single-arm studies reported 5-year OS and DFS rates of 97% and 94%, respectively, following SLNB alone. The pooled SLNB positivity rate across 13 studies was 8% (95% CI: 5%-12%). Sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the CSS results. Conclusion: This study suggests that SLNB provides oncologic outcomes comparable to LND while reducing surgical morbidity in early-stage cervical cancer. The inclusion of CSS as a validated endpoint reinforces the cancer-specific safety of SLNB, with no significant compromise observed in either OS or PFS. While current evidence is promising, further large-scale prospective trials are needed to refine indications and standardize implementation of SLNB in routine clinical practice.

Indexed as

cervical cancercervical carcinomalymphadenectomymeta - analysissentinel lymph node

Identifiers

PMID41858361
PMCPMC12995759

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.