SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2026
Sentinel lymph node biopsy versus lymphadenectomy in early-stage cervical cancer: a meta-analysis of oncologic outcomes and surgical morbidity.
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.
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 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
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.