The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Minimally Invasive versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: There are limited data from retrospective studies regarding whether survival outcomes after laparoscopic or robot-assisted radical hysterectomy (minimally invasive surgery) are equivalent to those after open abdominal radical hysterectomy (open surgery) among women with early-stage cervical cancer. METHODS: In this trial involving patients with stage IA1 (lymphovascular invasion), IA2, or IB1 cervical cancer and a histologic subtype of squamous-cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, or adenosquamous carcinoma, we randomly assigned patients to undergo minimally invasive surgery or open surgery. The primary outcome was the rate of disease-free survival at 4.5 years, with noninferiority claimed if the lower boundary of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of the between-group difference (minimally invasive surgery minus open surgery) was greater than -7.2 percentage points (i.e., closer to zero). RESULTS: A total of 319 patients were assigned to minimally invasive surgery and 312 to open surgery. Of the patients who were assigned to and underwent minimally invasive surgery, 84.4% underwent laparoscopy and 15.6% robot-assisted surgery. Overall, the mean age of the patients was 46.0 years. Most patients (91.9%) had stage IB1 disease. The two groups were similar with respect to histologic subtypes, the rate of lymphovascular invasion, rates of parametrial and lymph-node involvement, tumor size, tumor grade, and the rate of use of adjuvant therapy. The rate of disease-free survival at 4.5 years was 86.0% with minimally invasive surgery and 96.5% with open surgery, a difference of -10.6 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], -16.4 to -4.7). Minimally invasive surgery was associated with a lower rate of disease-free survival than open surgery (3-year rate, 91.2% vs. 97.1%; hazard ratio for disease recurrence or death from cervical cancer, 3.74; 95% CI, 1.63 to 8.58), a difference that remained after adjustment for age, body-mass index, stage of disease, lymphovascular invasion, and lymph-node involvement; minimally invasive surgery was also associated with a lower rate of overall survival (3-year rate, 93.8% vs. 99.0%; hazard ratio for death from any cause, 6.00; 95% CI, 1.77 to 20.30). CONCLUSIONS: In this trial, minimally invasive radical hysterectomy was associated with lower rates of disease-free survival and overall survival than open abdominal radical hysterectomy among women with early-stage cervical cancer. (Funded by the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center and Medtronic; LACC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00614211 .).
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A Proportional Hazards Model for the Subdistribution of a Competing Risk
Fine, J. P., & Gray, R. J. (1999) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1999.10474144 · Cited by 14,290
Cited by
Survival after Minimally Invasive Radical Hysterectomy for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer
Melamed, A., Margul, D. J., Chen, L., Keating, N. L., del Carmen, M. G., Yang, J., Seagle, B.-L. L., Alexander, A., Barber, E. L., Rice, L. W., et al. (2018) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1804923 · Cited by 709
Cervical cancer therapies: Current challenges and future perspectives
Burmeister, C. A., Khan, S. F., Schäfer, G., Mbatani, N., Adams, T., Moodley, J., & Prince, S. (2022) · Tumour Virus Research · doi:10.1016/j.tvr.2022.200238 · Cited by 474
Simple versus Radical Hysterectomy in Women with Low-Risk Cervical Cancer
Plante, M., Kwon, J. S., Ferguson, S., Samouëlian, V., Ferron, G., Maulard, A., de Kroon, C., Van Driel, W., Tidy, J., Williamson, K., et al. (2024) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa2308900 · Cited by 281
Cancer of the cervix uteri: 2025 update
Bhatla, N., Aoki, D., Sharma, D. N., & Sankaranarayanan, R. (2025) · International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics · doi:10.1002/ijgo.70277 · Cited by 58
Metadata
- Authors
- Ramirez, P. T., Frumovitz, M., Pareja, R., Lopez, A., Vieira, M., Ribeiro, R., Buda, A., Yan, X., Shuzhong, Y., Chetty, N., Isla, D., Tamura, M., Zhu, T., Robledo, K. P., Gebski, V., Asher, R., Behan, V., Nicklin, J. L., Coleman, R. L., & Obermair, A.
- Venue
- New England Journal of Medicine
- Publisher
- Massachusetts Medical Society
- Published
- 2018-11-15
- Volume
- 379
- Issue
- 20
- Pages
- 1895-1904
- ISSN
- 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
- 1533-4406
- OpenAlex
- W2898881288
- Cited by
- 1,874
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 193.79
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Minimally Invasive versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa1806395
- The paper
- Ramirez, P. T., Frumovitz, M., Pareja, R., Lopez, A., Vieira, M., Ribeiro, R., Buda, A., Yan, X., Shuzhong, Y., Chetty, N., Isla, D., Tamura, M., Zhu, T., Robledo, K. P., Gebski, V., Asher, R., Behan, V., Nicklin, J. L., Coleman, R. L., & Obermair, A. (2018). Minimally Invasive versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa1806395
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.