ArticleCancer medicine2023
OS and DFS are affected by different diagnostic methods and hysterectomy procedures in endometrial cancer patients: A single-center retrospective study.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Safety of diagnostic hysteroscopy for the investigation of type II endometrial cancer: systematic review with meta-analysis.BMJ open · 2024Pooled it
- OS and DFS are affected by different diagnostic methods and hysterectomy procedures in endometrial cancer patients: A single-center retrospective study.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeWe aimed to evaluate whether hysteroscopy increases the risk of intraperitoneal dissemination or worsens the prognosis of endometrial carcinoma (EC) patients and whether radical hysterectomy (RH) improves overall survival (OS) or disease-free survival (DFS) in patients with stage II to III EC and to investigate the effects of different procedures for identifying EC and the effects of different surgical methods on the OS and DFS of endometrial cancer patients.
methodsFour hundred sixty-five women with EC were included in this retrospective study. Log-rank tests and Kaplan-Meier analysis were used for the outcome comparisons of the effects of the EC diagnostic method and different hysterectomy procedures. A Cox proportional hazards model was used for univariate regression analysis.
resultsAmong the three procedures for diagnosing EC (diagnostic curettage, hysteroscopy, and hysterectomy), the incidences of fallopian tube and ovarian invasion were not significantly different (p = 0.506 and 0.066, respectively). The diagnostic methods for EC had no significant effect on OS (p = 0.577) or DFS (p = 0.294). In addition, type II RH and type III RH did not improve the prognosis of patients with FIGO stage II and III disease (log-rank p = 0.914 and 0.810 for OS; log-rank p = 0.707 and 0.771 for DFS, respectively).
conclusionBased on the current study evidence, the use of diagnostic hysteroscopy procedures is safe and does not increase the risk of fallopian tube and ovarian invasion of intraperitoneal dissemination or worsen the prognosis of EC patients. Type II and type III RH did not demonstrate a benefit for stage II-III EC 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.