Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33957111›Full record

SynthesisAmerican journal of obstetrics and gynecology2021

Primary cytoreductive surgery for advanced stage endometrial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Benjamin B Albright, Karen A Monuszko, Samantha J Kaplan, Brittany A Davidson, Haley A Moss, Allan B Huang, Alexander Melamed, Jason D Wright, Laura J Havrilesky, Rebecca A Previs

Open access · greenAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

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

10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Benjamin B AlbrightDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC. Electronic address: Benjamin.albright@duke.edu.
Karen A MonuszkoDuke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC.
Samantha J KaplanDuke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC.
Brittany A DavidsonDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC.
Haley A MossDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC.
Allan B HuangDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI.
Alexander MelamedDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, NY; Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY.
Jason D WrightDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, NY; Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY.
Laura J HavrileskyDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC.
Rebecca A PrevisDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC.
Duke Medical Center · USDuke University · USNewYork–Presbyterian Hospital · USBrown University · US

Funding

Interdisciplinary Research Careers in Women's HealthK12HD043446 · NICHD · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI AMUNDSEN, CINDY · 2002 to 2023
$9.6M
Duke Women's Reproductive Health Research ScholarsK12HD103083 · NICHD · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI Cindy Amundsen · 2020 to 2026
$2.2M
NICHD NIH HHS K12 HD043446NICHD NIH HHS K12 HD103083
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveEndometrial cancer uncommonly presents at an advanced stage and little prospective evidence exists to guide the management thereof. We aimed to summarize the evidence about primary cytoreductive surgery in the treatment of advanced stage endometrial cancer. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus databases were searched from inception to September 11, 2020, using search terms representing the themes "endometrial cancer," "advanced stage," and "primary cytoreductive surgery." STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included full-text, English reports that included ≥10 patients undergoing primary cytoreductive surgery for advanced stage endometrial cancer and that reported on the outcomes of primary cytoreductive surgery and survival rates based on the residual disease burden.

methodsTwo reviewers independently screened the studies and with disagreements between the reviewers resolved by a third reviewer. Data were extracted using a standardized form. The percentage of cases reaching maximal (no gross residual disease) and optimal (<1 cm or <2 cm residual disease) cytoreduction were assessed by summing binomials proportions, and the association with survival was assessed using an inverse variance-weighted meta-analysis of logarithmic hazard ratios.

resultsFrom 1219 unique records identified, 34 studies were selected for inclusion. Studies consisted of single or multi-institutional cohorts of patients collected over a period of 6 to 24 years and included various mixes of histologies (endometrioid, serous, clear cell, and carcinosarcoma) and disease stages (III or IV). In a meta-analysis of the extent of residual disease after primary cytoreductive surgery, we found that 52.1% of cases reached no gross residual disease status (n=18 studies; 1329 patients) and 75% reached <1 cm residual disease status (n=27 studies; 2343 patients). The proportion of cytoreduction for both thresholds was lower for studies of stage IV vs stage III to IV disease (41.4% vs 69.8% for no gross residual disease; 63.2% vs 82.2% for <1 cm residual disease) but did not vary notably by histology. In a meta-analysis of the reported hazard ratios, submaximal (any gross residual disease vs no gross residual disease) and suboptimal (≥1 cm vs <1 cm) cytoreduction thresholds were associated with worse progression-free survival (submaximal hazard ratio, 2.16; 95% confidence interval, 1.45-3.21; I

conclusionAmong cases of advanced stage endometrial cancer undergoing primary cytoreductive surgery, a significant proportion of patients are left with residual disease, which is associated with worse survival outcomes. Further investigations about the roles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and primary cytoreductive surgery in prospective trials is warranted in this population.

Indexed as

Cytoreduction Surgical ProceduresEndometrial NeoplasmsFemaleHumansNeoplasm, ResidualProgression-Free SurvivalSurvival Rateadvanced stageendometrial cancerprimary cytoreductive surgerystage IVsurvivaluterine cancer

Identifiers

PMID33957111
PMCPMC8717361
OpenAlexW3157067067

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.