The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Simple versus Radical Hysterectomy in Women with Low-Risk Cervical Cancer
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Retrospective data suggest that the incidence of parametrial infiltration is low in patients with early-stage low-risk cervical cancer, which raises questions regarding the need for radical hysterectomy in these patients. However, data from large, randomized trials comparing outcomes of radical and simple hysterectomy are lacking. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial comparing radical hysterectomy with simple hysterectomy including lymph-node assessment in patients with low-risk cervical cancer (lesions of ≤2 cm with limited stromal invasion). The primary outcome was cancer recurrence in the pelvic area (pelvic recurrence) at 3 years. The prespecified noninferiority margin for the between-group difference in pelvic recurrence at 3 years was 4 percentage points. RESULTS: according to the 2009 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) criteria (91.7%), that had squamous-cell histologic features (61.7%), and that were grade 1 or 2 (59.3%). With a median follow-up time of 4.5 years, the incidence of pelvic recurrence at 3 years was 2.17% in the radical hysterectomy group and 2.52% in the simple hysterectomy group (an absolute difference of 0.35 percentage points; 90% confidence interval, -1.62 to 2.32). Results were similar in a per-protocol analysis. The incidence of urinary incontinence was lower in the simple hysterectomy group than in the radical hysterectomy group within 4 weeks after surgery (2.4% vs. 5.5%; P = 0.048) and beyond 4 weeks (4.7% vs. 11.0%; P = 0.003). The incidence of urinary retention in the simple hysterectomy group was also lower than that in the radical hysterectomy group within 4 weeks after surgery (0.6% vs. 11.0%; P<0.001) and beyond 4 weeks (0.6% vs. 9.9%; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with low-risk cervical cancer, simple hysterectomy was not inferior to radical hysterectomy with respect to the 3-year incidence of pelvic recurrence and was associated with a lower risk of urinary incontinence or retention. (Funded by the Canadian Cancer Society and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01658930.).
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
The National Comprehensive Cancer Network: Present and future directions
McGivney, W. T. (1998) · Cancer · doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0142(19980515)82:10+<2057::aid-cncr14>3.0.co;2-a · Cited by 16,766
Minimally Invasive versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer
Ramirez, P. T., Frumovitz, M., Pareja, R., Lopez, A., Vieira, M., Ribeiro, R., Buda, A., Yan, X., Shuzhong, Y., Chetty, N., et al. (2018) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1806395 · Cited by 1,874
ConCerv: a prospective trial of conservative surgery for low-risk early-stage cervical cancer
Schmeler, K. M., Pareja, R., Lopez Blanco, A., Humberto Fregnani, J., Lopes, A., Perrotta, M., Tsunoda, A. T., Cantú-de-León, D. F., Ramondetta, L. M., Manchana, T., et al. (2021) · International Journal of Gynecological Cancer · doi:10.1136/ijgc-2021-002921 · Cited by 243
Donato, V. D., Bogani, G., Casarin, J., Ghezzi, F., Malzoni, M., Falcone, F., Petrillo, M., Capobianco, G., Calò, F., D’Augè, T. G., et al. (2023) · Gynecologic Oncology · doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2023.04.030 · Cited by 60
Less radical surgery for early-stage cervical cancer: a systematic review
Wu, J. Q., Logue, T. C., Kaplan, S. J., et al. (2020) · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2020.11.041 · Cited by 47
Minimally Invasive Surgery for Cervical Cancer in Light of the LACC Trial: What Have We Learned?
Touhami, O., & Plante, M. (2022) · Current Oncology · doi:10.3390/curroncol29020093 · Cited by 41
Self-citation
Cited by
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
- Plante, M., Kwon, J. S., Ferguson, S., Samouëlian, V., Ferron, G., Maulard, A., de Kroon, C., Van Driel, W., Tidy, J., Williamson, K., Mahner, S., Kommoss, S., Goffin, F., Tamussino, K., Eyjólfsdóttir, B., Kim, J.-W., Gleeson, N., Brotto, L., Tu, D., & Shepherd, L. E.
- Venue
- New England Journal of Medicine
- Publisher
- Massachusetts Medical Society
- Published
- 2024-02-29
- Volume
- 390
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 819-829
- ISSN
- 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
- 1533-4406
- OpenAlex
- W4392229557
- Cited by
- 281
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 134.09
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Simple versus Radical Hysterectomy in Women with Low-Risk Cervical Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa2308900
- The paper
- Plante, M., Kwon, J. S., Ferguson, S., Samouëlian, V., Ferron, G., Maulard, A., de Kroon, C., Van Driel, W., Tidy, J., Williamson, K., Mahner, S., Kommoss, S., Goffin, F., Tamussino, K., Eyjólfsdóttir, B., Kim, J.-W., Gleeson, N., Brotto, L., Tu, D., & Shepherd, L. E. (2024). Simple versus Radical Hysterectomy in Women with Low-Risk Cervical Cancer. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa2308900
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.