ArticlePloS one2020
Risk factors of progression to endometrial cancer in women with endometrial hyperplasia: A retrospective cohort study.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It carries an expression of concern. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Immunohistochemical Investigation of Cyclooxygenase-2 Expression in Rabbit Uterine Adenocarcinoma and the Potential Use of COX-2 Inhibitors in Cancer Therapy.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024Article
- Endometrial Atypical Hyperplasia and Risk of Endometrial Cancer.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Risk-stratification machine learning model using demographic factors, gynaecological symptoms and β-catenin for endometrial hyperplasia and carcinoma: a cross-sectional study.BMC women's health · 2023Article
- Is HOXA5 a Novel Prognostic Biomarker for Uterine Corpus Endometrioid Adenocarcinoma?International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Expression of concern
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to investigate risk factors of progression to endometrial cancer (EC) in women with non-atypical and atypical endometrial hyperplasia (EH).
methodsThe data of 62,333 women with EH diagnostic codes from 2007 to 2018 were sourced from the Korean Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service databases. The data from 11,525 women with non-atypical EH and 2,219 women with atypical EH who met the selection criteria were extracted for analysis.
resultsRisk of EC in women with EH decreased in 40-49 year olds compared to other ages (non-atypical EH: [≤39 vs. 40-49 years] HR, 0.557; 95% CI, 0.439-0.708; P<0.001; [≤39 vs. ≥50 years] P = 0.739; atypical EH: [≤39 vs. 40-49 years] HR, 0.391; 95% CI, 0.229-0.670; P = 0.001; [≤39 vs. ≥50 years] P = 0.712). Risk of EC increased with increase in number of follow-up biopsies in women with non-atypical EH (1 biopsy: HR, 1.835; 95% CI, 1.282-2.629; P = 0.001; ≥2 biopsies: HR, 3.644; 95% CI, 2.585-5.317; P<0.001) and in women receiving ≥2 follow-up biopsies with atypical EH (HR, 3.827; 95% CI, 1.924-7.612; P = 0.001). Time of progression to EC decreased in women ≥50 years old with non-atypical EH compared to other ages (P = 0.004) and showed no differences among ages in women with atypical EH (P = 0.576). Progestational agents were a protective factor for EC in women with non-atypical EH (HR, 0.703; 95% CI, 0.565-0.876; P = 0.002).
conclusionsIn this claim data analysis, women ≤39 and ≥50 years old with EH were at a high risk for progression to EC, and repeat follow-up biopsy after a diagnosis of EH increased detection of EC. Progestational agents were an effective modality to prevent EC in women with non-atypical EH.
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.