ArticleJournal of cancer research and clinical oncology2018
Is there a benefit of lymphadenectomy for overall and recurrence-free survival in type I FIGO IB G1-2 endometrial carcinoma? A retrospective population-based cohort analysis.
Article in Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy of Single- and Dual-Docking Robotic Surgery of Paraaortic and Pelvic Lymphadenectomy in High-Risk Endometrial Cancer.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Article
- Review
- A detailed analysis of lymph node recurrence in endometrial carcinoma.Translational cancer research · 2022Article
- Quantitative Measurement of Progesterone Receptor Immunohistochemical Expression to Predict Lymph Node Metastasis in Endometrial Cancer.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Lymphadenectomy issues in endometrial cancer.Journal of gynecologic oncology · 2021Review
- Impact of nodal status and treatment strategy on overall survival in advanced stage cervical cancer.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe recommended therapy for type I FIGO IB endometrial cancer (EC) is hysterectomy and adnexectomy, but the therapeutic benefits of additional pelvic and paraaortic lymph node dissection (LND) are still under discussion. In this study, we retrospectively evaluated overall survival (OAS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) among patients with type I FIGO IB EC who did undergo systematic or elective lymphadenectomy or none at all.
methodsWe selected 299 individuals from the database of the German Tumor Centre Regensburg who were diagnosed between 1998 and 2015 with endometrial adenocarcinoma of the uterus type I FIGO IB. We applied multivariable Cox regression to the selected patient data and estimated hazard ratios for OAS and RFS against the performed intervention. Further, we carried out risk adjustments with respect to clinicopathological parameters, and performed model selection using conditional stepwise forward selection.
resultsWe observed significant benefits of LND in the unadjusted survival analysis; however, we did not confirm this effect in multivariable regression analysis upon risk adjustment. In this case, hazard ratio (HR) for OAS in patients without LND versus patients with LND is reduced to 1.214 (95% CI 0.771-1.911; p = 0.402), HR for RFS is 1.059 (95% CI 0.689-1.626; p = 0.795). Similarly, we were also able to eliminate the statistical benefit of systematic versus elective LND by risk adjustment.
conclusionsIn contrast to previous observations in high-grade EC, our study provides compelling evidence that LND, in particular systematic lymphadenectomy, is not beneficial for patients with type I FIGO IB EC in terms of long-term OAS and RFS.
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.