ArticleInternational journal of women's health2026
Limited Survival Benefit of Preoperative Conization Before Radical Surgery in Stage IB Cervical Cancer: An IPTW-Adjusted Retrospective Cohort Study.
Article in International journal of women's health, 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
Background: Cervical cancer remains a major global health burden. Preoperative conization has been proposed to reduce tumor burden and potential intraoperative tumor dissemination, but its survival benefit in patients with stage IB cervical cancer remains uncertain. This study aimed to evaluate the association between preoperative conization and survival outcomes after radical surgery in patients with FIGO 2018 stage IB cervical cancer. Methods: This retrospective study included 1,614 patients with FIGO 2018 stage IB1-IB3 cervical cancer who underwent radical surgery between 2007 and 2016 at a single center. Patients were classified into four groups based on surgical approach and conization status. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) based on propensity scores was used to balance baseline characteristics. Survival outcomes were compared using weighted Kaplan-Meier analysis. Results: After IPTW adjustment, baseline covariate balance was substantially improved, although residual imbalances remained for FIGO stage, depth of stromal invasion, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and tumor differentiation. Weighted survival analysis showed no consistent survival advantage associated with preoperative conization. In pairwise OS comparisons, the laparotomy with conization group appeared to have superior OS compared with the other groups; however, this finding should be interpreted cautiously because no death events occurred in this group, resulting in non-estimable hazard ratios for comparisons involving this group. For PFS, no significant differences were observed between groups, including laparotomy with versus without conization (HR = 2.61, 95% CI: 0.62-11.02, P = 0.54), laparoscopic surgery without conization versus laparotomy without conization (HR = 1.97, 95% CI: 0.98-3.94, P = 0.21), laparoscopic surgery with conization versus laparotomy without conization (HR = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.21-3.49, P = 1.00), laparoscopic surgery without conization versus laparotomy with conization (HR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.18-3.08, P = 0.98), laparoscopic surgery with conization versus laparotomy with conization (HR = 0.32, 95% CI: 0.05-2.02, P = 0.60), and laparoscopic surgery with versus without conization (HR = 0.43, 95% CI: 0.12-1.59, P = 0.56). Conclusion: Preoperative conization was not associated with improved OS or PFS in patients with FIGO 2018 stage IB cervical cancer undergoing radical surgery. The apparent OS advantage observed in the laparotomy with conization group was based on zero death events and non-estimable hazard ratios, and therefore should not be interpreted as definitive evidence of a survival benefit. Further prospective multicenter studies with larger conization cohorts and longer follow-up are warranted.
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.