ArticlePloS one2022
Prognostic features of endometrial cancer metastasis to the central nervous system.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- The genomic landscape of distant metastatic endometrial cancer.Gynecologic oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesCentral nervous system metastases (CNSm) secondary to endometrial cancer (EC) are rare. As a result, prognostic factors for this patient population are not well described.
methodsEC patients with CNSm were identified retrospectively from two academic centers. EC patients without CNSm (non-CNSm) were used as controls. Chi-square and Fisher's exact tests were used for analysis of categorial variables. Wilcoxon tests were used for quantitative measures. Overall survival (OS) was compared with Log-rank test. Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate hazard ratios for OS.
results22 EC patients with CNSm and 354 non-CNSm patients were included. Compared to non-CNSm EC, the CNSm cohort was younger (58.5 vs 62.0 years, p = 0.018) with lower BMI (27.7 vs. 33.7 kg/m2, p = 0.005), and had more advanced stages (p = ≤ 0.001), grade 3 tumors (81.8% CNSm vs 25.1% non CNSm, p≤0.001) and serous histology (22.7% vs 8.5%, p = 0.010). Median survival after CNSm diagnosis was 9 months (95% CI 4, NA). CNSm was a strong poor prognostic factor (HR death 4.96, p = 0.022). Improved OS was seen with CNS as the only disease site (83m CNSm only vs 30m additional sites, p = 0.007) and less than five CNSm (49m <5 vs. 23m ≥5, p = 0.004). Surgical resection of CNSm (OS 83m surgery vs 33m no surgery, p = 0.003) or multimodal therapy (83m multimodal vs 33m single therapy, p = 0.027) resulted in longer OS.
conclusionsCNSm is a poor prognostic factor in EC, however, low volume disease with aggressive treatment may result in more favorable survival outcomes.
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.