Influence of ovarian-sparing surgery and ovariectomy on prognosis in early cervical adenocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The effect of ovarian-sparing surgery versus ovariectomy on prognosis in early cervical adenocarcinoma is controversial. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of ovary preservation versus ovariectomy on the prognosis of patients with cervical adenocarcinoma. Methods: A literature search was conducted of the PubMed, Excerpta Medica Database, Medline, Central, China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases, and China Science Periodical Database. The subjects of the literature study were patients with cervical adenocarcinoma. The literature compared the prognostic impact of ovary-sparing versus ovariectomy surgery. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to evaluate the quality of the articles. The Chi-square test was used to test the heterogeneity of the articles, and the random-effects model was used if the results indicated heterogeneity. A subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis were used to examine the source of heterogeneity. If there was no heterogeneity among the articles, a fixed-effects model was used. Publication bias was evaluated using funnel plots and Egger test. Results: A total of 3,467 patients with stage IA-IB cervical adenocarcinoma from 5 articles were included in the meta-analysis, of whom 995 had ovarian preservation and 1,895 had ovariectomy. There was no statistically significant difference in the 5-year overall survival (OS) between the stage IA-IIB cervical adenocarcinoma patients in the ovariectomy group and the ovarian preservation group (P=0.14). Additionally, there was no heterogeneity among these articles, and no publication bias (P>0.05). There was no significant difference in the 5-year progression free survival (PFS) between the stage IA-IIB cervical adenocarcinoma patients in the ovariectomy group and the ovarian preservation group (P=0.11). Additionally, there was no heterogeneity among these articles, and no publication bias (P>0.05). There was no significant difference in the 5-year disease specific survival (DSS) between the stage IA-IIB cervical adenocarcinoma patients in the ovariectomy group and the ovarian preservation group (P=0.48). Additionally, there was no heterogeneity among these articles, and no publication bias (P>0.05). Conclusions: There was no statistically significant difference in 5-year OS, PFS and DSS between ovarian-sparing surgery and oophorectomy for early-stage cervical adenocarcinoma. High-quality randomized controlled trials are still needed to verify this conclusion.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.037 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".