ArticleJournal of cancer research and clinical oncology2024
Derivation and validation of a nomogram based on clinical characteristics to diagnose endometriosis associated ovarian cancer preoperatively.
Article in Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Prediction models for endometriosis-associated ovarian malignancy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology: X · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe preoperative diagnosis of endometriosis associated ovarian cancer (EAOC) remains challenging for lack of effective diagnostic biomarker. We aimed to study clinical characteristics and develop a nomogram for diagnosing EAOC before surgery.
methodsA total of 87 patients with EAOC and 348 patients with ovarian endometrioma (OEM) were enrolled in our study. Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression and Logistic regression were utilized to select variables and construct the prediction model. The performance of the model was assessed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses and calibration plots, while decision curve analyses (DCAs) were conducted to assess clinical value. Bootstrap resampling was used to evaluated the stability of the model in the derivation set.
resultsThe EAOC patients were older compared to the OEM patients (46.41 ± 9.62 vs. 36.49 ± 8.09 year, P < 0.001) and proportion of postmenopausal women was higher in EAOC group than in the OEM group (34.5 vs. 1.5%, P < 0.001). Our prediction model, which included age at diagnosis, tumor size, cancer antigen (CA) 19-9 and risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA), demonstrated an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.858 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.795-0.920) in the derivation set (N = 304) and an AUC of 0.870 (95% CI: 0.779-0.961) in the validation set (N = 131). The model fitted both the derivation (Hosmer-Lemeshow test (HL) chi-square = 12.600, P = 0.247) and the validation (HL chi-square = 8.210, P = 0.608) sets well.
conclusionCompared to patients with OEM, those with EAOC exhibited distinct clinical characteristics. Our four-variable prediction model demonstrated excellent performance in both the derivation and validation sets, suggesting its potential to assist with preoperative diagnosis of EAOC.
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.