Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36077713›Full record

ReviewCancers2022

Recurrent Endometrial Cancer: Which Is the Best Treatment? Systematic Review of the Literature.

Stefano Restaino, Giorgia Dinoi, Eleonora La Fera, Benedetta Gui, Serena Cappuccio, Maura Campitelli, Giuseppe Vizzielli, Giovanni Scambia, Francesco Fanfani

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cancers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Minimally invasive surgical treatment of recurrent endometrial carcinoma: A systematic review.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

9 authors.

Stefano RestainoDivision of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital of Udine, Azienda Sanitaria Universitaria Friuli Centrale, 33100 Udine, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-7848-0329
Giorgia DinoiDipartimento della Salute della Donna, del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy.
Eleonora La FeraDipartimento Scienze della Vita e Sanità Pubblica, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 00168 Rome, Italy.
Benedetta GuiArea Diagnostica per Immagini, Dipartimento Diagnostica per Immagini, Radioterapia Oncologica ed Ematologia, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-5130-2100
Serena CappuccioDipartimento della Salute della Donna, del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy.
Maura CampitelliFondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, UOC di Radioterapia, Dipartimento di Scienze Radiologiche, Radioterapiche ed Ematologiche, 00168 Roma, Italy.
Giuseppe VizzielliDepartment of Medicinal Area (DAME) Clinic of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Santa Maria della Misericordia Hospital, Azienda Sanitaria Universitaria Friuli Centrale, 33100 Udine, Italy.
Giovanni ScambiaDipartimento della Salute della Donna, del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy.
Francesco FanfaniDipartimento della Salute della Donna, del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEndometrial cancer is the most common gynaecological tumour in developed countries. The overall rate of relapse has remained unchanged in recent decades. Recurrences occur in approximately 20% of endometrioid and 50% of non-endometrioid cases. The aim of this systematic review is to compare different therapeutic strategies in the treatment of endometrial cancer recurrence to evaluate their prognostic and curative effects based on site and type of recurrence.

methodsThis systematic review of literature was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. The study protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020154042). PubMed, Embase, Chocrane and Cinahl databases were searched from January 1995 to September 2021. Five retrospective studies were selected.

resultsA total of 3571 studies were included in the initial search. Applying the screening criteria, 299 articles were considered eligible for full-text reading, of which, after applying the exclusion criteria, 4 studies were selected for the final analysis and included in the systematic review. No studies were included for a quantitative analysis. We divided the results according to the location of the recurrence: locoregional recurrence, abdominal recurrence and extra abdominal recurrence.

conclusionthe treatment of choice should be assessed according to the relapse location and to the presence of single or multiple lesions. A crucial role in the decision-making algorithm is also the type of adjuvant treatment received at the time of the first diagnosis.

Indexed as

chemotherapyradiotherapyrecurrent endometrial cancersecondary cytoreductive surgery

Identifiers

PMID36077713
PMCPMC9454638

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.