Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37875322›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society2023

Machine learning endometrial cancer risk prediction model: integrating guidelines of European Society for Medical Oncology with the tumor immune framework.

Valentina Bruno, Martina Betti, Lorenzo D'Ambrosio, Alice Massacci, Benito Chiofalo, Adalgisa Pietropolli, Giulia Piaggio, Gennaro Ciliberto, Paola Nisticò, Matteo Pallocca and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Artificial intelligence in the diagnosis and management of gynecologic cancer.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2025
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

12 authors.

Valentina Bruno *Department of Experimental Clinical Oncology, IRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy valentina.bruno@ifo.it.
Martina Betti *Alleanza Contro il Cancro, Rome, Italy.ORCID 0009-0003-4462-2207
Lorenzo D'Ambrosio *IRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-9656-7436
Alice MassacciIRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy.
Benito ChiofaloDepartment of Experimental Clinical Oncology, IRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy.
Adalgisa PietropolliSection of Ginecology and Obstetrics, Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Roma, Italy.
Giulia PiaggioIRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy.
Gennaro CilibertoIRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy.
Paola NisticòIRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy.
Matteo Pallocca *IRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy.
Alessandro Buda *Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Michele and Pietro Ferrero Hospital, Verduno, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-7093-6862
Enrico Vizza *Department of Experimental Clinical Oncology, IRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveCurrent prognostic factors for endometrial cancer are not sufficient to predict recurrence in early stages. Treatment choices are based on the prognostic factors included in the risk classes defined by the ESMO-ESGO-ESTRO (European Society for Medical Oncology-European Society of Gynaecological Oncology-European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology) consensus conference with the new biomolecular classification based on POLE, TP53, and microsatellite instability status. However, a minority of early stage cases relapse regardless of their low risk profiles. Integration of the immune context status to existing molecular based models has not been fully evaluated. This study aims to investigate whether the integration of the immune landscape in the tumor microenvironment could improve clinical risk prediction models and allow better profiling of early stages.

methodsLeveraging the potential of in silico deconvolution tools, we estimated the relative abundances of immune populations in public data and then applied feature selection methods to generate a machine learning based model for disease free survival probability prediction.

resultsWe included information on International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage, tumor mutational burden, microsatellite instability, POLEmut status, interferon γ signature, and relative abundances of monocytes, natural killer cells, and CD4+T cells to build a relapse prediction model and obtained a balanced accuracy of 69%. We further identified two novel early stage profiles that undergo different pathways of recurrence.

conclusionThis study presents an extension of current prognostic factors for endometrial cancer by exploiting machine learning models and deconvolution techniques on available public biomolecular data. Prospective clinical trials are advisable to validate the early stage stratification.

Indexed as

Endometrial NeoplasmsMicrosatellite InstabilityFemaleHumansMedical OncologyNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalPregnancyProspective StudiesRecurrenceTumor Microenvironmentendometriumgynecologyneoplasm recurrence, localneoplastic processessurgical oncology

Identifiers

PMID37875322
PMCPMC10646888

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.