Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27430321›Full record

ArticleBMC cancer2016

Are preoperative histology and MRI useful for classification of endometrial cancer risk?

Noemie Body, Vincent Lavoué, Olivier De Kerdaniel, Fabrice Foucher, Sébastien Henno, Aurélie Cauchois, Bruno Laviolle, Marc Leblanc, Jean Levêque

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC cancer, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. ESGO/ESTRO/ESP Guidelines for the management of patients with endometrial carcinoma.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2021
    Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Observational
  13. 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

9 authors.

Noemie BodyGynaecology Department, Rennes University Hospital, Hôpital Sud, Rennes, France.
Vincent LavouéGynaecology Department, Rennes University Hospital, Hôpital Sud, Rennes, France. vincent.lavoue@chu-rennes.fr.
Olivier De KerdanielGynaecology Department, Rennes University Hospital, Hôpital Sud, Rennes, France.
Fabrice FoucherGynaecology Department, Rennes University Hospital, Hôpital Sud, Rennes, France.
Sébastien HennoPathology Department, CHU Pontchaillou, Rennes University Hospital, Rennes, France.
Aurélie CauchoisPathology Department, CHU Pontchaillou, Rennes University Hospital, Rennes, France.
Bruno LaviolleClinical Pharmacology Department, Rennes University Hospital, CIC Inserm 0203, Hôpital Pontchaillou, Rennes, France.
Marc LeblancGynaecology Department, Bretagne Atlantique Hospital, Vannes, France.
Jean LevêqueGynaecology Department, Rennes University Hospital, Hôpital Sud, Rennes, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe 2010 guidelines of the French National Cancer Institute (INCa) classify patients with endometrial cancer into three risk groups for lymph node invasion and recurrence on the basis of MRI and histological analysis of an endometrial specimen obtained preoperatively. The classification guides therapeutic choices, which may include pelvic and/or para-aortic lymphadenectomy. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of preoperative assessment to help identify intermediate- or high-risk patients requiring lymphadenectomy.

methodsThe study included all patients who underwent surgery for endometrial cancer between January 2010 and December 2013 at either Rennes University Hospital or Vannes Regional Hospital. The criteria for eligibility included a preoperative assessment with MRI and histological examination of an endometrial sample. A histological comparison was made between the preoperative and surgical specimens.

resultsAmong the 91 patients who underwent a full preoperative assessment, the diagnosis of intermediate- or high-risk endometrial cancer was established by MRI and histology with a sensitivity of 70 %, specificity of 82 %, positive predictive value (PPV) of 87 %, negative predictive value (NPV) of 61 %, positive likelihood ratio (LR+) of 3.8 and negative likelihood ratio (LR-) of 0.3. The risk group was underestimated in 32 % of patients and overestimated in 7 % of patients. MRI underestimated endometrial cancer stage in 20 % of cases, while endometrial sampling underestimated the histological type in 4 % of cases and the grade in 9 % of cases.

conclusionThe preoperative assessment overestimated or underestimated the risk of recurrence in nearly 40 % of cases, with errors in lesion type, grade or stage. Erroneous preoperative risk assessment leads to suboptimal initial surgical management of patients with endometrial cancer.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overEndometrial NeoplasmsEndometriumFemaleHumansLymphatic MetastasisLymph Node ExcisionLymph NodesMagnetic Resonance ImagingMiddle AgedNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalNeoplasm StagingPreoperative CareReproducibility of ResultsEndometrial cancerEndometrial sampleLymphadenectomyMRIRisk group

Identifiers

PMID27430321
PMCPMC4950781

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.