Simple hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy versus radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy for women with stage IA2-IB1 cervical cancer
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
RATIONALE: Radical hysterectomy is a standard operation for women with early-stage cervical cancer, involving removal of the womb, cervix (neck of the womb), surrounding tissues (parametrial tissue), and part of the vagina. Given a relatively low risk of parametrial involvement in a selected group of women with early-stage cervical cancer, simple hysterectomy (removing only the uterus and cervix) with pelvic lymphadenectomy (surgical removal of the lymph glands found in the pelvis) might be an alternative option to reduce risk of complications. OBJECTIVES: To determine the benefits and harms of simple hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy versus radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy for women with stage IA2-IB1 cervical cancer. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Web of Science Core Collection, PubMed, and two trial registry databases, along with reference checking and citation searching. The last search date was 19 March 2025. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included randomised clinical trials comparing simple hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy versus radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy for women with cervical cancer FIGO 2019 stage IA2-IB1. OUTCOMES: Critical outcomes were all-cause mortality, overall survival (OS), cancer-related mortality, and disease-free survival (DFS). Important outcomes included cancer recurrence, adverse events, sexual dysfunction, cost-effectiveness, and quality of life (QoL). RISK OF BIAS: Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias of each included study using the Cochrane Risk of bias 2 (RoB 2) tool. SYNTHESIS METHODS: We conducted meta-analyses using random-effects models to calculate hazard ratios (HRs), risk ratios (RRs), mean differences (MDs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for all outcomes. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. INCLUDED STUDIES: We included two trials involving 740 participants. One small trial was conducted in Brazil (40 participants). The larger trial, involving 700 participants, included centres in Western Europe, South Korea, and Canada. In this larger trial, 75.0% of participants were white. We classified one report as awaiting classification, and did not identify any ongoing studies. SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS: = 0%; 2 studies, 740 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Sexual function and QoL outcomes appeared to be more favourable for women undergoing simple hysterectomy at some time points. Additionally, simple hysterectomy was the dominant strategy in terms of cost-effective assessment. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence primarily due to some concerns about risk in one included study, and due to imprecision of the pooled results. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Simple hysterectomy may be a viable option for carefully selected women with early-stage cervical cancer, as it may result in little to no differences in survival and cancer recurrence rates compared to radical hysterectomy. Additionally, there were likely fewer perioperative adverse events and there may be better short-term QoL and sexual function in women undergoing simple hysterectomy. The included studies did not directly compare the effect of the route of surgery (open versus minimal access). This review has a limited representation of non-white women and women from low-resource settings. FUNDING: No specific funding was received for this review. REGISTRATION: Cochrane protocol (2016) DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012335. PROSPERO 2016 CRD42016047631. Available from: crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42016047631.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,019 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,006 | 0,005 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,010 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».