ArticleBMC cancer2026
Comparative effectiveness of radical surgery versus concurrent chemoradiotherapy in stages IB3, IIA2, or locally resectable IIICr cervical cancer: a prospective, multicenter, propensity score-matched cohort study.
Article in BMC cancer, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhile concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) is the standard first-line treatment, radical surgery (RS) is frequently preferred in China, despite unclear comparative efficacy. The role of minimally invasive surgery also remains controversial and requires further validation. These persistent uncertainties underscore the need to advance research into LACC treatment strategies.
methodsWe conducted a multicenter prospective cohort study at three tertiary teaching hospitals in Shanghai, including 246 patients with specific locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC; FIGO 2018 stages IB3, IIA2, or locally resectable IIICr). We compared overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), adverse events (AEs), two-year quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and treatment costs between RS (n = 198) and definitive CCRT (n = 48). We also compared tumor-free laparoscopic RS (n = 119) with open RS (n = 79) within the RS cohort. Propensity score matching (PSM) was applied to reduce potential confounding. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the results.
resultsAfter PSM, there were no significant differences in OS or PFS between the RS and definitive CCRT groups (two-year OS: 92% [86-97%] vs. 91% [82-100%]; two-year PFS: 79% [72-87%] vs. 78% [66-91%]), nor between the tumor-free laparoscopic and open RS groups (two-year OS: 97% [93-100%] vs. 91% [84-98%]; two-year PFS: 82% [74-92%] vs. 78% [69-89%]). Subgroup and sensitivity analyses yielded consistent findings. Two-year QALYs were comparable between the RS and definitive CCRT groups (23.55 [22.54, 24.00] vs. 23.53 [22.60, 23.80] months; W = 3148, p = 0.074), but significantly higher in the tumor-free laparoscopic RS group than in the open RS group (24.00 [23.52, 24.00] vs. 23.52 [21.77, 24.00] months; W = 3060, p = 0.003). The median total treatment cost was significantly higher in the RS group than in the definitive CCRT group (96,879 [91,400-104,815] CNY vs. 83,555 [73,790-95,554] CNY; W = 347.000, p = 0.018).
conclusionsRS and definitive CCRT provided comparable short-term survival outcomes and two-year QALYs in specific LACC patients, although the RS group tended to be associated with higher treatment costs. Within the surgical cohort, tumor-free laparoscopic RS achieved similar survival outcomes to open RS but offered better two-year QoL benefits, supporting its role as a potential surgical option under strict oncologic principles.
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.