Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30039227›Full record

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.

Thomas Papathemelis, Dunja Hassas, Michael Gerken, Monika Klinkhammer-Schalke, Anton Scharl, Michael P Lux, Mathias W Beckmann, Sophia Scharl

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Lymphadenectomy issues in endometrial cancer.Journal of gynecologic oncology · 2021
    Review
  6. 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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Thomas PapathemelisFrauenklinik, Klinikum St. Marien Amberg, Amberg, Germany. papathemelis@web.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1805-2610
Dunja HassasTumorzentrum Regensburg, Institut für Qualitätssicherung und Versorgungsforschung der Universität Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.
Michael GerkenTumorzentrum Regensburg, Institut für Qualitätssicherung und Versorgungsforschung der Universität Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.
Monika Klinkhammer-SchalkeTumorzentrum Regensburg, Institut für Qualitätssicherung und Versorgungsforschung der Universität Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.
Anton ScharlFrauenklinik, Klinikum St. Marien Amberg, Amberg, Germany.
Michael P LuxGynäkologisches Universitäts-Krebszentrum Franken, Frauenklinik, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, CCC Erlangen-EMN, Friedrich-AlexanderUniversität Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany.
Mathias W BeckmannGynäkologisches Universitäts-Krebszentrum Franken, Frauenklinik, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, CCC Erlangen-EMN, Friedrich-AlexanderUniversität Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany.
Sophia ScharlKlinik und Poliklinik für RadioOnkologie und Strahlentherapie, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany.
University of Regensburg · DEOlgahospital · DEUniversitätsklinikum Erlangen · DETUM Klinikum · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AgedAged, 80 and overEndometrial NeoplasmsFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansLymph Node ExcisionMiddle AgedNeoplasm InvasivenessNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalNeoplasm StagingRetrospective StudiesSurvival RateEndometrial cancerLymphadenectomyOutcomeOverall survivalRecurrence

Identifiers

PMID30039227
PMCPMC11813286
OpenAlexW2883196859

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.