ArticleInternational journal of clinical oncology2022
Oncologic outcomes in elderly patients who underwent hysterectomy for endometrial cancer: a multi-institutional survey in Kinki District, Japan.
Article in International journal of clinical oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Guideline-concordant treatment and clinical outcomes in older patients with endometrial cancer in Japan: a retrospective single-institution study.International journal of clinical oncology · 2026Article
- Endometrial Cancer Patient-Derived Xenograft Models: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
37 authors at 17 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe goal of this study is to assess the oncologic outcomes of elderly patients who underwent hysterectomy for endometrial cancer across three variables: hysterectomy approach, lymph node resection, and adjuvant therapy.
methodsHospital records of patients aged ≥ 70 years who underwent hysterectomy for endometrial cancer were obtained from 19 institutions. Patients were categorized into three risk groups: low, intermediate, and high. In each group, disease-free survival and overall survival were compared according to hysterectomy approach, lymph node resection, and adjuvant therapy using Kaplan-Meier method. Cox regression analysis with a 95% confidence interval was performed to estimate relative risk (RR) of death.
resultsA total of 1246 patients were included. In the low-risk group, the adjusted RR for death for minimally invasive surgery (MIS) versus laparotomy and lymph node resection versus no lymph node resection were 0.64 (0.24-1.72) and 0.52 (0.24-1.12), respectively. In the intermediate-risk group, the adjusted RR for death for MIS versus laparotomy, lymph node resection versus no lymph node resection, and adjuvant therapy versus no adjuvant therapy were 0.80 (0.36-1.77), 0.60 (0.37-0.98), and 0.89 (0.55-1.46), respectively. In the high-risk group, the adjusted RRs for death for lymph node resection versus no lymph node resection and adjuvant therapy versus no adjuvant therapy were 0.56 (0.37-0.86) and 0.60 (0.38-0.96), respectively.
conclusionsMIS is not inferior to laparotomy in uterine-confined diseases. Lymph node resection improved the outcome for all disease stages and histological types. In contrast, adjuvant therapy improved the outcomes only in high-risk patients.
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.