Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37882835›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2024

Nodal infiltration in endometrial cancer: a prediction model using best subset regression.

Yuka Kuriyama Matsumoto, Yuki Himoto, Mizuho Nishio, Nao Kikkawa, Satoshi Otani, Kimiteru Ito, Koji Yamanoi, Tomoyasu Kato, Koji Fujimoto, Yasuhisa Kurata and 6 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

16 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Yuka Kuriyama MatsumotoDepartment of Diagnostic Imaging and Nuclear Medicine, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, 54 Kawaharacho, Shogoin, Sakyo-Ku, Kyoto, 606-8507, Japan.
Yuki HimotoDepartment of Diagnostic Imaging and Nuclear Medicine, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, 54 Kawaharacho, Shogoin, Sakyo-Ku, Kyoto, 606-8507, Japan. yhimoto@kuhp.kyoto-u.ac.jp.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8508-8221
Mizuho NishioDepartment of Radiology, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, Kobe, Japan.
Nao KikkawaDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.
Satoshi OtaniDepartment of Diagnostic Imaging and Nuclear Medicine, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, 54 Kawaharacho, Shogoin, Sakyo-Ku, Kyoto, 606-8507, Japan.
Kimiteru ItoDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.
Koji YamanoiDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan.
Tomoyasu KatoDepartment of Gynecology, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.
Koji FujimotoDepartment of Diagnostic Imaging and Nuclear Medicine, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, 54 Kawaharacho, Shogoin, Sakyo-Ku, Kyoto, 606-8507, Japan.
Yasuhisa KurataDepartment of Diagnostic Imaging and Nuclear Medicine, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, 54 Kawaharacho, Shogoin, Sakyo-Ku, Kyoto, 606-8507, Japan.
Yusaku MoribataDepartment of Diagnostic Imaging and Nuclear Medicine, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, 54 Kawaharacho, Shogoin, Sakyo-Ku, Kyoto, 606-8507, Japan.
Hiroshi YoshidaDepartment of Diagnostic Pathology, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.
Sachiko MinamiguchiDepartment of Diagnostic Pathology, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan.
Masaki MandaiDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan.
Aki KidoDepartment of Diagnostic Imaging and Nuclear Medicine, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, 54 Kawaharacho, Shogoin, Sakyo-Ku, Kyoto, 606-8507, Japan.
Yuji NakamotoDepartment of Diagnostic Imaging and Nuclear Medicine, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, 54 Kawaharacho, Shogoin, Sakyo-Ku, Kyoto, 606-8507, Japan.
Kyoto University · JPTokyo National Hospital · JPKobe University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo build preoperative prediction models with and without MRI for regional lymph node metastasis (r-LNM, pelvic and/or para-aortic LNM (PENM/PANM)) and for PANM in endometrial cancer using established risk factors.

methodsIn this retrospective two-center study, 364 patients with endometrial cancer were included: 253 in the model development and 111 in the external validation. For r-LNM and PANM, respectively, best subset regression with ten-time fivefold cross validation was conducted using ten established risk factors (4 clinical and 6 imaging factors). Models with the top 10 percentile of area under the curve (AUC) and with the fewest variables in the model development were subjected to the external validation (11 and 4 candidates, respectively, for r-LNM and PANM). Then, the models with the highest AUC were selected as the final models. Models without MRI findings were developed similarly, assuming the cases where MRI was not available.

resultsThe final r-LNM model consisted of pelvic lymph node (PEN) ≥ 6 mm, deep myometrial invasion (DMI) on MRI, CA125, para-aortic lymph node (PAN) ≥ 6 mm, and biopsy; PANM model consisted of DMI, PAN, PEN, and CA125 (in order of correlation coefficient β values). The AUCs were 0.85 (95%CI: 0.77-0.92) and 0.86 (0.75-0.94) for the external validation, respectively. The model without MRI for r-LNM and PANM showed AUC of 0.79 (0.68-0.89) and 0.87 (0.76-0.96), respectively.

conclusionsThe prediction models created by best subset regression with cross validation showed high diagnostic performance for predicting LNM in endometrial cancer, which may avoid unnecessary lymphadenectomies. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: The prediction risks of lymph node metastasis (LNM) and para-aortic LNM can be easily obtained for all patients with endometrial cancer by inputting the conventional clinical information into our models. They help in the decision-making for optimal lymphadenectomy and personalized treatment. KEY POINTS: •Diagnostic performance of lymph node metastases (LNM) in endometrial cancer is low based on size criteria and can be improved by combining with other clinical information. •The optimized logistic regression model for regional LNM consists of lymph node ≥ 6 mm, deep myometrial invasion, cancer antigen-125, and biopsy, showing high diagnostic performance. •Our model predicts the preoperative risk of LNM, which may avoid unnecessary lymphadenectomies.

Indexed as

Endometrial NeoplasmsLymphatic MetastasisLymph NodesMagnetic Resonance ImagingAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCA-125 AntigenFemaleHumansMiddle AgedNeoplasm InvasivenessRetrospective StudiesRisk FactorsCA-125 AntigenDecision support techniquesEndometrial neoplasmsLymphatic metastasisMagnetic resonance imagingMulticenter study

Identifiers

PMID37882835
OpenAlexW4387950569

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.