MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412570323 · doi:10.1097/js9.0000000000003027

Surgical approach, preoperative LEEP/conization and patterns of recurrence and death in low-risk cervical cancer – exploratory analysis from the CCTG CX.5/SHAPE trial

2025· article· en· W4412570323 on OpenAlexafffund
Sven� Mahner, Fabian Trillsch, Janice S. Kwon, Sarah E. Ferguson, Paul Bessette, Alexandra Sebastianelli, François Golfier, Tristan Gauthier, Cor D. de Kroon, Willemien J. van Driel, John Tidy, Karin Williamson, Frédéric Goffin, Stephan Polterauer, Brynhildur Eyjólfsdóttir, Patrick Maguire, Barbara Schmalfeldt, L. E. Shepherd, Dongsheng Tu, Marie Plante

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Surgery · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEndometrial and Cervical Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsCanadian Cancer SocietyCentre hospitalier universitaire de QuébecUniversité de SherbrookePrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchDirection Générale de l’offre de SoinsCancer Research UK
KeywordsMedicineHysterectomySurgeryCervical cancerRadical HysterectomyRetrospective cohort studyCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: SHAPE demonstrated that simple hysterectomy was not inferior to radical hysterectomy in patients with low-risk cervical cancer. To further understand the role of preoperative LEEP/conization, clear LEEP/conization margins and surgical approach, analyses were performed regarding patterns of recurrence and death. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Outcomes (pelvic recurrence, extrapelvic recurrence and cervical cancer-related death) by surgical approach (minimally invasive surgery [MIS] vs. open), LEEP/conization (yes vs. no, involved vs. negative margins) and residual disease in the hysterectomy specimen (yes vs. no) are described with 3-year outcome rate estimated by Kaplan-Meier method and compared by Cox models. RESULTS: With a median follow-up of 4.5 years, 25 (3.7%) recurrences (pelvic or extrapelvic) were observed from 680 patients who underwent simple (338) or radical (342) hysterectomy. At surgeons' discretion, MIS was performed in 524 (77%) and open surgery in 156 (23%). Overall, 19 recurrences occurred following MIS (3.6%) and 6 following open surgery (3.8%). Among 174 patients with clear margins after LEEP/conization, 2 (1.4%) developed pelvic recurrences after MIS and none after open surgery. Among the entire cohort, 9 patients had extrapelvic recurrence, 7/524 (1.3%) following MIS and 2/156 (1.3%) following open surgery. However, no extrapelvic recurrence occurred after either MIS or open surgery among patients who had pre-hysterectomy LEEP/conization with clear margins. With regards to cervical cancer-related deaths, all occurred after MIS (5/524, 0.95%) and none after open surgery or after previous LEEP/conization with clear margins. CONCLUSIONS: Similar rates of recurrence and death were observed between patients who underwent MIS and open surgery within the SHAPE cohort. No extrapelvic recurrences and death occurred in patients with clear margins following prior LEEP/conization, regardless of surgical approach. The concept of pre-hysterectomy LEEP/conization might help to triage the most effective surgical strategy in terms of surgical approach and radicality in low-risk cervical cancer patients to ensure safe outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.283

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.279 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of SurgerySame topicEndometrial and Cervical Cancer TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207