Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31328454›Full record

Observational studyJournal of gynecologic oncology2019

Improved preoperative risk stratification with CA-125 in low-grade endometrial cancer: a multicenter prospective cohort study.

Casper Reijnen, Nicole Cm Visser, Jenneke C Kasius, Dorry Boll, Peggy M Geomini, Huy Ngo, Dennis Van Hamont, Brenda M Pijlman, Maria Caroline Vos, Johan Bulten and 3 more

Open access · diamondAbstract readMulticenter StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Journal of gynecologic oncology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
4.6field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Casper ReijnenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6873-7832
Nicole Cm VisserDepartment of Pathology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3919-3922
Jenneke C KasiusCentre of Gynaecologic Oncology Amsterdam, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9631-1422
Dorry BollDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5339-8505
Peggy M GeominiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Màxima Medical Centre, Veldhoven, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1951-1076
Huy NgoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Elkerliek Hospital, Helmond, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6206-1624
Dennis Van HamontDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Amphia Hospital, Breda, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5928-3269
Brenda M PijlmanDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, 's-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1449-3726
Maria Caroline VosDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Elisabeth-Tweesteden Hospital, Tilburg, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1612-0395
Johan BultenDepartment of Pathology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8168-6045
Marc Plm SnijdersDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Canisius-Wilhelmina Hospital, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2434-7442
Leon Fag MassugerDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1539-8985
Johanna Ma PijnenborgDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6138-1236
Radboud University Nijmegen · NLAmphia Ziekenhuis · NLAmsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam · NLCanisius-Wilhelmina Ziekenhuis · NLElisabeth-TweeSteden Ziekenhuis · NLElkerliek Ziekenhuis · NLJeroen Bosch Ziekenhuis · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe global obesity epidemic has great impact on the prevalence of low-grade endometrial carcinoma. The preoperative tumor serum marker cancer antigen 125 (CA-125) might contribute to improved identification of high-risk patients within this group. The study aimed to investigate the prognostic value of CA-125 in relation to established preoperative prognosticators, with a focus on identifying patients with poor outcome in low-grade endometrial carcinoma (EC) patients.

methodsProspective multicenter cohort study including all consecutive patients surgically treated for endometrial carcinoma in nine collaborating hospitals from September 2011 until December 2013. All preoperative histopathological diagnoses were reviewed in a blinded manner. Associations between CA-125 and clinicopathological features were determined. Univariable and multivariable analysis by Cox regression were used. Separate analyses were performed for preoperatively designated low-grade and high-grade endometrial carcinoma patients.

resultsA total of 333 patients were analyzed. CA-125 was associated with poor prognostic features including advanced International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage. In multivariable analysis, age, preoperative tumor and CA-125 were significantly associated with disease-free survival (DFS); preoperative grade, tumor type, FIGO and CA-125 were significantly associated with disease-specific survival (DSS). Low-grade EC patients with elevated CA-125 revealed a DFS of 80.6% and DSS of 87.1%, compared to 92.1% and 97.2% in low-grade EC patients with normal CA-125.

conclusionPreoperative elevated CA-125 was associated with poor prognostic features and independently associated with DFS and DSS. Particularly patients with low-grade EC and elevated CA-125 represent a group with poor outcome and should be considered as high-risk endometrial carcinoma.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overBiomarkers, TumorCA-125 AntigenEndometrial NeoplasmsFemaleHumansMiddle AgedNeoplasm GradingPreoperative CarePrognosisProspective StudiesRisk AssessmentBiomarkers, TumorCA-125 AntigenBiomarkersCA-125 AntigenEndometrial NeoplasmsLow-grade CarcinomaRisk Stratification

Identifiers

PMID31328454
PMCPMC6658593
OpenAlexW2925124664

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.