ArticleCureus2023
Clinical Features and Prognostic Factors in Patients With Uterine Leiomyosarcoma: A Single-Center Experience.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Uterine leiomyosarcomas (LMS) are associated with more recurrence and higher mortality compared to other uterine cancers. Considering the limited number of case series in the literature, the limited effectiveness of standard treatment methods, and the inadequacy of molecular biomarkers, we planned to investigate the effects of treatment methods and survival outcomes in these patients. Methodology The study was designed retrospectively, and the records of patients who were followed up and treated at Ankara University Faculty of Medicine, Medical Oncology Clinic, between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2021, were reviewed. Patients over 18 years of age with a pathological diagnosis of uterine LMS were included. Demographic, clinical, and pathological data were recorded using the hospital database. The International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) staging was reassessed for each patient in accordance with the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, Eighth Edition (2017). Tumor size, location, and grade were also evaluated. Types of treatments, protocols, and adverse effects were recorded. Relapsed patients, relapse localization, and treatments given at relapse were recorded and compared. Results Twenty-eight patients were included. The mean age of the patients was 53.7 years. The median follow-up time was 39.3 months. The localization of LMS could be detected in 22 (78.57%) patients, among them 20 (90.9%) patients had intramural, 1 (4.5%) had submucosal, and 1 (4.5%) had subserosal LMS. All patients (26, 92.8%) underwent primary surgery, except for 2 (7.14%) patients who were metastatic at the time of diagnosis. Adjuvant treatment suggestion was made for 7 (25%) patients with a high risk of recurrence in the multidisciplinary tumor council. Partial response was observed in 1 (3.5%) of the 2 (7.1%) metastatic patients, and stable disease was observed in the other. Recurrence was detected in 22 (84.6%) patients . Fifteen (53.6%) patients died during the follow-up period. Survival was better in premenopausal patients (99.2 versus 51.6 months,
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.