Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34898563›Full record

ArticleCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.)2021

Could the Long-Term Oncological Safety of Laparoscopic Surgery in Low-Risk Endometrial Cancer also Be Valid for the High-Intermediate- and High-Risk Patients? A Multi-Center Turkish Gynecologic Oncology Group Study Conducted with 2745 Endometrial Cancer Cases. (TRSGO-End-001).

Mehmet Ali Vardar, Ahmet Baris Guzel, Salih Taskin, Mete Gungor, Nejat Ozgul, Coskun Salman, Umran Kucukgoz-Gulec, Ghanim Khatib, Cagatay Taskiran, Ilkkan Dünder and 15 more

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 40% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

25 authors at 13 institutions in 1 country.

Mehmet Ali VardarGynecologic Oncology Department, Medical Faculty, Çukurova University, Adana 01380, Turkey.
Ahmet Baris GuzelGynecologic Oncology Department, Medical Faculty, Çukurova University, Adana 01380, Turkey.
Salih TaskinGynecologic Oncology Department, Medical Faculty, Ankara University, Ankara 06100, Turkey.
Mete GungorGynecologic Oncology Department, Medical Faculty, Ankara University, Ankara 06100, Turkey.
Nejat OzgulGynecologic Oncology Department, Medical Faculty, Hacettepe University, Ankara 06230, Turkey.
Coskun SalmanGynecologic Oncology Department, Medical Faculty, Hacettepe University, Ankara 06230, Turkey.ORCID 0000-0003-1504-1756
Umran Kucukgoz-GulecGynecologic Oncology Department, Medical Faculty, Çukurova University, Adana 01380, Turkey.
Ghanim KhatibGynecologic Oncology Department, Medical Faculty, Çukurova University, Adana 01380, Turkey.ORCID 0000-0002-0163-1141
Cagatay TaskiranGynecologic Oncology Department, Medical Faculty, Gazi University, Ankara 06560, Turkey.
Ilkkan DünderGynecologic Oncology Department, Medical Faculty, Ankara University, Ankara 06100, Turkey.
Firat OrtacGynecologic Oncology Department, Medical Faculty, Ankara University, Ankara 06100, Turkey.
Kunter YuceGynecologic Oncology Department, Medical Faculty, Hacettepe University, Ankara 06230, Turkey.
Cosan TerekGynecologic Oncology Department, Medical Faculty, Ege University, İzmir 35040, Turkey.
Tayup SimsekGynecologic Oncology Department, Medical Faculty, Akdeniz University, Antalya 07070, Turkey.
Aydın OzsaranGynecologic Oncology Department, Medical Faculty, Ege University, İzmir 35040, Turkey.
Anil OnanGynecologic Oncology Department, Medical Faculty, Gazi University, Ankara 06560, Turkey.
Gonca CobanGynecologic Oncology Department, Adana Training and Research Hospital, Başkent University, Adana 01250, Turkey.ORCID 0000-0002-3285-5519
Samet TopuzGynecologic Oncology Department, Çapa Medical Faculty, İstanbul University, İstanbul 34093, Turkey.
Fuat DemirkiranGynecologic Oncology Department, Medical Faculty, İstanbul University, Cerrahpaşa, İstanbul 34098, Turkey.ORCID 0000-0002-0439-2502
Ozguc TakmazGynecologic Oncology Department, Medical Faculty, Acıbadem University, İstanbul 34684, Turkey.
M Faruk KoseGynecologic Oncology Department, Medical Faculty, Medipol University, İstanbul 34200, Turkey.
Ahmet GocmenGynecologic Oncology Department, Umraniye Training and Research Hospital, İstanbul 34760, Turkey.
Gulsah SeydaogluDepartment of Biostatistics, Medical Faculty, Çukurova University, Adana 01380, Turkey.
Derya GumurduluDepartment of Gynecologic Pathology, Medical Faculty, Çukurova University, Adana 01380, Turkey.
Ali AyhanGynecologic Oncology Department, Medical Faculty, Başkent University, Ankara 06490, Turkey.
Cukurova University · TRAnkara University · TRHacettepe University · TRBaşkent University · TREge University · TRAcıbadem University · TRAkdeniz University · TRGazi University · TRIstanbul Medipol University · TRIstanbul University · TRIstanbul University-Cerrahpaşa · TRKoç University · TRÜmraniye Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi · TR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study was conducted to compare the long-term oncological outcomes of laparotomy and laparoscopic surgeries in endometrial cancer under the light of the 2016 ESMO-ESGO-ESTRO risk classification system, with particular focus on the high-intermediate- and high-risk categories. Using multicentric databases between January 2005 and January 2016, disease-free and overall survivals of 2745 endometrial cancer cases were compared according to the surgery route (laparotomy vs. laparoscopy). The high-intermediate- and high-risk patients were defined with respect to the 2016 ESMO-ESGO-ESTRO risk classification system, and they were analyzed with respect to differences in survival rates. Of the 2745 patients, 1743 (63.5%) were operated by laparotomy, and the remaining were operated with laparoscopy. The total numbers of high-intermediate- and high-risk endometrial cancer cases were 734 (45%) patients in the laparotomy group and 307 (30.7%) patients in the laparoscopy group. Disease-free and overall survivals were not statistically different when compared between laparoscopy and laparotomy groups in terms of low-, intermediate-, high-intermediate- and high-risk endometrial cancer. In conclusion, regardless of the endometrial cancer risk category, long-term oncological outcomes of the laparoscopic approach were found to be comparable to those treated with laparotomy. Our results are encouraging to consider laparoscopic surgery for high-intermediate- and high-risk endometrial cancer cases.

Indexed as

Endometrial NeoplasmsLaparoscopyDisease-Free SurvivalFemaleHumansLaparotomyRiskhigh-risk endometrial cancerlaparoscopic surgerysurvival

Identifiers

PMID34898563
PMCPMC8628704
OpenAlexW2989503620

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.