Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33933018›Full record

ArticleBMC cancer2021

How to manage synchronous endometrial and ovarian cancer patients?

Wonkyo Shin, Sang-Yoon Park, Sokbom Kang, Myong Cheol Lim, Sang-Soo Seo

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC cancer, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Synchronous endometrial and ovarian cancer: A case report.World journal of clinical cases · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Wonkyo ShinCenter for Gynecologic Cancer, Graduate School of Cancer Science and Policy, National Cancer Center, 323 Ilsan-ro, Ilsandong-gu, Goyang-si, Gyeonggi-do, 10408, Republic of Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5728-250X
Sang-Yoon ParkCenter for Gynecologic Cancer, Graduate School of Cancer Science and Policy, National Cancer Center, 323 Ilsan-ro, Ilsandong-gu, Goyang-si, Gyeonggi-do, 10408, Republic of Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8325-6009
Sokbom KangCenter for Gynecologic Cancer, Graduate School of Cancer Science and Policy, National Cancer Center, 323 Ilsan-ro, Ilsandong-gu, Goyang-si, Gyeonggi-do, 10408, Republic of Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8428-9555
Myong Cheol LimCenter for Gynecologic Cancer, Graduate School of Cancer Science and Policy, National Cancer Center, 323 Ilsan-ro, Ilsandong-gu, Goyang-si, Gyeonggi-do, 10408, Republic of Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8964-7158
Sang-Soo SeoCenter for Gynecologic Cancer, Graduate School of Cancer Science and Policy, National Cancer Center, 323 Ilsan-ro, Ilsandong-gu, Goyang-si, Gyeonggi-do, 10408, Republic of Korea. ssseomd@ncc.re.kr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2381-0965
National Cancer Center · USSejong University · KR

Funding

national cancer center, Korea NCC-1910180
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundsWe aimed to evaluate the prognosis in patients with synchronous endometrial and ovarian cancer (SEOC) by comparing the differences between double primary cancer (DPC) and metastatic cancer (MC).

methodsThe medical records of 47 patients diagnosed synchronously with endometrial and ovarian cancer between January 2006 and December 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. Twenty-eight and 19 patients were diagnosed with DPC and MC, respectively. Demographics, recurrence-free survival (RFS), and 5-year overall survival (OS) were compared. The clinical factors affecting survival were evaluated using univariate and multivariate analyses.

resultsThe demographics were not different between both groups. Endometrioid histology and the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics grade were higher in the MC group than in the DPC group (42.1% vs. 10.7%; P = 0.018, P = 0.002, respectively). The ratio of post-operative adjuvant therapy was not different in both groups. Recurrence occurred in five patients with DPC and seven with MC. The difference in RFS was not significantly different (P = 0.131) but the OS was different between both groups (P = 0.020). Histology and para-aortic lymph node metastasis were associated wtih RFS in univariate analysis, but no difference was found in multivariate analysis.

conclusionsAlthough DPC patients had longer OS, multivariate analysis did not identify any influential factors. Focus should be placed on defining the appropriate adjuvant treatment for high-risk patients, which will improve prognosis, rather than on discriminating between DPC and MC.

Indexed as

Endometrial NeoplasmsNeoplasms, Multiple PrimaryOvarian NeoplasmsAdultAgedAnalysis of VarianceDisease-Free SurvivalFemaleHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateLymphatic MetastasisMiddle AgedNeoplasm GradingNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalPrognosisRetrospective StudiesEndometrial neoplasmsMetastasisOvarian cancerPrognosisSynchronous cancer

Identifiers

PMID33933018
PMCPMC8088669
OpenAlexW3115129937

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.