Who should be offered non-radical surgery for early-stage cervical cancer?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cervical cancer is the fourth most common cancer in women worldwide [1]. The standard treatment for early-stage cervical cancer such as the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage IB is radical hysterectomy combined with bilateral pelvic lymph node assessment [2]. Radical trachelectomy is a safe alternative for young women who wish to preserve fertility [3]. The 5-year survival rate is excellent, ranging from 73.4% to 97.5% [4-6]. However, those radical procedures have significant morbidity, mainly as a result of the removal of the parametria. The parametrectomy is the most challenging part of the procedure and major complications have been reported such as blood loss, bladder and rectal dysfunction, sexual dysfunction, and fistula formation [7-12]. In recent years, the value of radical hysterectomy or trachelectomy in early-stage cervical cancer has been questioned. Parametrial involvement in early-stage cervical cancer with favorable prognostic factors can be as low as 1% [13-15]. Several reports have suggested that less radical surgery such as cervical conization, simple trachelectomy or simple hysterectomy with pelvic lymph node assessment is probably sufficient in well-selected early-stage cervical cancer to achieve excellent oncologic outcomes [16-19]. Reade et al. [13] recently summarized those reports and identified 476 women with early-stage cervical cancer managed with non-radical surgery. The reported recurrence rate was 1.5% and the rate of cancer-related death was 0.5%. Although level I evidence is still missing, this report suggests that non-radical surgery is probably a safe option in low-risk early-stage cervical cancer patients.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".