ArticleOncology letters2017
Coexistence of adenomyosis uteri and endometrial cancer is associated with an improved prognosis compared with endometrial cancer only.
Article in Oncology letters, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Adenomyosis is not an independent prognostic factor in endometrioid-type endometrial cancer.Irish journal of medical science · 2026Article
- Adenomyosis and endometrial cancer: determining its role as a biological contributor or incidental coexistence.BMC cancer · 2025Article
- Coexistence of uterine adenomyosis is not associated with a better prognosis in endometrioid-type endometrial cancer.Irish journal of medical science · 2020Article
- The clinicopathological characteristics and survival outcomes of endometrial carcinoma coexisting with or arising in adenomyosis: A pilot study.Scientific reports · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present study aimed to identify differences in protein expression in cases of endometrioid endometrial cancer (EEC) with and without coexisting adenomyosis uteri (AM), and to evaluate the histopathological and prognostic distinctions. The total cohort included 22 patients in Group A (patients with concomitant AM and EEC) and 35 patients in Group B (patients affected only by EEC). Evaluation of the following factors was performed: Tumour grade, International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage, survival, and expression of estrogen receptor β (ERβ), glycodelin and inhibin βB. Group A (AM and EEC) was associated with a lower tumour grade (G1, 90.9 vs. 45.7%; P=0.001) and a lower FIGO stage (FIGO stage I, 100 vs. 80%; P=0.002) compared with Group B (EEC only). In the survival analysis, Group A was associated with a significantly higher 5-year survival rate (95 vs. 82%; P=0.024) than Group B. In addition, the expression of ERβ in Group A was significantly higher (P<0.001), whereas the expression of glycodelin is significantly lower (P=0.028), compared with Group B. The results of the present study indicate that the presence of AM in cases of EEC may be a positive prognostic factor.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.