Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26107255›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Multivariate Analysis of Prognostic Biomarkers in Surgically Treated Endometrial Cancer.

Jianpei Li, Jianhua Lin, Yaoling Luo, Miaohuan Kuang, Yijun Liu

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Bariatric surgery in patients with breast and endometrial cancer in California: population-based prevalence and survival.Surgery for obesity and related diseases : official journal of the American Society for Bariatric Surgery · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Prognostic molecular biomarkers in endometrial cancer: A review.Journal of cancer research & therapy · 2019
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Jianpei LiDepartment of Clinical laboratory, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China/Cancer Center of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong province, PR China.
Jianhua LinDepartment of Clinical laboratory, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China/Cancer Center of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong province, PR China.
Yaoling LuoDepartment of Clinical laboratory, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China/Cancer Center of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong province, PR China.
Miaohuan KuangDepartment of Clinical laboratory, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China/Cancer Center of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong province, PR China.
Yijun LiuDepartment of Clinical laboratory, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China/Cancer Center of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong province, PR China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe aim of this study was to identify biomarkers with prognostic value in the setting of surgically treated endometrial cancer.

methodsMedical data for 282 patients with surgically treated endometrial cancer were reviewed retrospectively. Preoperative concentrations of six serum biomarkers (CA125, CA15-3, C-reactive protein [CRP], D-dimer [D-D], platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio [PLR], and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio [NLR]) were analysed to determine potential associations with clinicopathologic characteristics and to assess prognostic values separately via Kaplan-Meier method and multivariate Cox regression.

resultsIn univariate analyses, the 5-year overall survival (OS) rate was 86.5% for a maximum follow-up period of 75 months. High concentrations of CA125, CA15-3, CRP, D-D, PLR, and NLR each proved significantly predictive of poor survival (log-rank test, P<0.01). CRP and D-D were identified as independent prognosticators, using a Cox regression model. Study patients were then stratified (based on combined independent risk factors) into three tiers (P<0.001), marked by 5-year OS rates of 92.1%, 78.4%, and 33.3%.

conclusionsAll serum biomarkers assessed (CA125, CA15-3, CRP, D-D, PLR, and NLR) proved to be valid prognostic indices of surgically treated endometrial cancer. A novel prognostic grouping system, incorporating independent risk factors (CRP and D-D Concentrations), may have merit in assessing these patients preoperatively, providing a biologic basis for improved clinical staging.

Indexed as

AdultAgedBiomarkers, TumorBlood PlateletsCA-125 AntigenC-Reactive ProteinEndometrial NeoplasmsFemaleFibrin Fibrinogen Degradation ProductsHumansLymphocytesMembrane ProteinsMiddle AgedMucin-1Multivariate AnalysisNeutrophilsBiomarkers, TumorCA-125 AntigenC-Reactive ProteinFibrin Fibrinogen Degradation Productsfibrin fragment DMembrane ProteinsMUC16 protein, humanMucin-1

Identifiers

PMID26107255
PMCPMC4479375

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.