ArticleJournal of the Turkish German Gynecological Association2018
Clinicopathologic and survival results in serous endometrium carcinoma and subgroup analysis for mixed serous and pure serous histology.
Article in Journal of the Turkish German Gynecological Association, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Endometrial serous carcinoma: A retrospective review of histological features & their clinicopathological association with disease-free survival & overall survival.The Indian journal of medical research · 2022Article
- What Has Changed in the Management of Uterine Serous Carcinomas? Two Decades of Experience.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo review the clinicopathologic and survival outcomes of patients with serous endometrial cancer (EC) and to investigate subgroup analysis based on pure serous and mixed serous EC subtypes. MATERIAL AND
methodsPatients who underwent EC surgery between 2002 and 2014 and who were reported as serous EC were enrolled in the study. All patients were diagnosed as having serous EC or mixed serous EC with serous component higher than 10% based on the postoperative pathology report.
resultsA total of 93 patients were analyzed. The median disease-free and overall survival (OS) durations were 49.6 and 32.2 months, respectively. Forty-three patients (46.2%) relapsed and 35 patients (37.6%) died. The histologic type was pure serous EC in 52 (55.9%) and mixed EC in 41 (44.9%) patients. There was no statistical difference between the pure serous and mixed serous groups in terms of age, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage, lymphadenectomy, lymph node metastasis or adjuvant therapy combinations. Twenty-nine (55.8%) patients in the pure serous group and 14 (34.1%) in the mixed serous group hade recurrence (p=0.038). Twenty-five (48.1%) patients in the pure serous group and 10 (24.4%) in the mixed serous group died (p=0.034). In the pure serous group, the mean disease-free and OS durations were shorter than in the mixed serous group (59 vs. 81 months and 73 vs. 95 months, log-rank p=0.055 and 0.041, respectively). Histologic type was a significant prognostic factor on recurrence and OS in the univariate analysis (Hazard ratio: 2.404, 95% Confidence interval: 1.01-5.71; 2.027, respectively), but not in the multivariate analysis, which included disease stage and age of the patients.
conclusionCompared with pure serous and mixed serous endometrium cancer groups, primary surgical treatments, clinicopathologic features and adjuvant treatments were similar, but there was a survival difference. Patients with pure serous cancer had a worse prognosis. However histology was not an independent factor for survival.
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.