Is less more in the surgical treatment of early-stage cervical cancer?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This article discusses recent developments towards less radical surgical treatment for early-stage cervical cancer. RECENT FINDINGS: Surgery is the standard treatment for early-stage cervical cancer. In the last decades, new treatment strategies have been developed aiming to reduce morbidity, without hampering oncological safety. We provide an update of the latest knowledge on safety and morbidity following less radical surgical procedures in early-stage cervical cancer. In cervical cancer with a tumour size of 2 cm or less, radical surgery (simple hysterectomy or fertility-sparing conisation) may be a well tolerated option. For patients with larger lesions (>2 cm) and wishing to preserve fertility, administration of neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by less extensive surgery appears to be a feasible and well tolerated alternative to abdominal trachelectomy. With regard to lymph node assessment, increasing evidence shows the feasibility of the sentinel lymph node procedure instead of full pelvic lymphadenectomy. Prospective trials reporting on oncological safety are awaited.It is important to exercise caution when new surgical strategies are introduced. Despite promising retrospective data, prospective randomized studies may present unexpected results, for instance, minimally invasive radical hysterectomy showed inferior results compared to laparotomy. SUMMARY: There is a shift towards less radical treatment for early-stage cervical cancer. This review explores whether and when less is really more.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".