Observational study of the BGOG on the results of robot-assisted radical hysterectomy for stage I cervical cancer in Belgium.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BackgroundTwo recent studies (the LACC trial and a cohort study based on the National Cancer Database) raise the question if minimally invasive surgery (conventional and robot-assisted laparoscopy) is inferior to open abdominal surgery in early stage cervical cancer. Notable is the low rate of recurrence and death in the laparotomy group of the LACC trial. This study wants to elucidate the current situation of patients with early stage cervical cancer treated with robot-assisted laparoscopy in hospitals of the Belgium and Luxembourg Gynaecological Oncology Group (BGOG). We examined data of patients similar to those included in the LACC trial in terms of cervical cancer recurrence and survival. MethodologyIn this prospective follow up study combined data of different BGOG hospitals were analysed regarding patients with stage IA1, IA2 and IB1 cervical cancer with a histologic subtype of squamous-cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma or adenosquamous carcinoma treated with robot-assisted laparoscopy. Outcomes were disease free and overall survival at 3 and 5 years. Results A total of 270 patients were included and 166 patients were suited for analysis. Mean age was 46 years. Most patients had FIGO stage IB1 (84.2%) and squamous cell carcinoma as histological subtype (71,7%). Mean follow up time was 3,5 years, with a range between 1 and 131 months. 21 recurrences and 12 deaths were noted, of which 8 deaths were related to cervical cancer. Disease free survival at 3 years was 86%. Overall survival at 3 years was 96%. ConclusionCurrent results of the BGOG show disease free and overall survival rates of patients with early stage cervical cancer after robot-assisted laparoscopy that are consistent with those mentioned by the American and Canadian Cancer Society.However, more randomized trials are needed to investigate if minimally invasive surgery remains an equal option in the treatment of early stage cervical cancer in comparison to laparotomy. DisclosuresThe authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.017 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".