Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31036348›Full record

ArticleGynecologic oncology2019

Patterns of utilization and outcome of ovarian conservation for young women with minimal-risk endometrial cancer.

Rachel S Mandelbaum, Ling Chen, Donna Shoupe, Richard J Paulson, Lynda D Roman, Jason D Wright, Koji Matsuo

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Gynecologic oncology, 2019. 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
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Rachel S MandelbaumDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Ling ChenDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, NY, USA.
Donna ShoupeDivision of Reproductive, Endocrinology, and Infertility, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Richard J PaulsonDivision of Reproductive, Endocrinology, and Infertility, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Lynda D RomanDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA; Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Jason D WrightDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, NY, USA.
Koji MatsuoDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA; Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. Electronic address: koji.matsuo@med.usc.edu.
University of Southern California · USColumbia University · US

Funding

USC/NORRIS COMPREHENSIVE CANCER CENTER (CORE) SUPPORTP30CA014089 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI MYLES G COCKBURN · 1985 to 2026
$181.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA014089
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo profile patient characteristics associated with and outcomes of ovarian conservation at the time of hysterectomy in young women with minimal-risk endometrial cancer.

methodsA population-based retrospective analysis of the Nationwide Inpatient Sample between 2007 and 2015 was performed. Women aged <50 with minimal-risk endometrial cancer who had ovarian conservation (n = 2314) were compared to those who had oophorectomy (n = 8191). A classification-tree model with recursive partitioning analysis was constructed to examine patterns of ovarian conservation. Propensity score matching was performed and length of stay and perioperative complications were compared. Two validation cohorts were also analyzed in a similar fashion (benign gynecologic disease and cervical cancer).

resultsThere were nine distinct patterns of patient characteristics identified, and ovarian conservation rates ranged from 11.7% (women aged 40-49 who underwent abdominal hysterectomy at an urban teaching hospital) to 60.5% (non-obese women aged <40 with median household income ≥$63,000) (absolute difference, 48.8%, 95% confidence interval 39.9-57.7; P < 0.001). After propensity score matching, ovarian conservation was significantly associated with a decreased likelihood of hospitalization >2 days (relative risk reduction, 16.7%, P < 0.001). Rates of surgical complications were not different between the two groups (8.2% versus 8.3%, P = 0.91). In the benign gynecologic disease and cervical cancer cohorts, ovarian conservation was also associated with decreased length of hospitalization (all, P < 0.05).

conclusionThere is substantial variability in the utilization of ovarian conservation in young women with minimal-risk endometrial cancer based on patient, surgical, and hospital factors. Our study suggests that guidelines for ovarian conservation in this population would be helpful for improving patient selection and rates of ovarian conservation.

Indexed as

AdultAge FactorsCohort StudiesEndometrial NeoplasmsFemaleHumansHysterectomyMiddle AgedOrgan Sparing TreatmentsOvariectomyOvaryPractice Patterns, Physicians'Retrospective StudiesRiskEndometrial cancerOutcomeOvarian conservationPerformanceUtility

Identifiers

PMID31036348
PMCPMC7523230
OpenAlexW2941353206

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.