Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38578538›Full record

SynthesisClinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico2024

Molecular profile in endometrial carcinoma: can we predict the lymph node status? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Ana Luzarraga Aznar, Vicente Bebia, Natalia Rodriguez Gomez-Hidalgo, Carlos López-Gil, Marta Miguez, Eva Colas, Asunción Pérez-Benavente, Antonio Gil-Moreno, Silvia Cabrera

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico, 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
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  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

9 authors.

Ana Luzarraga AznarUnitat de Ginecologia Oncològica. Servei de Ginecología. Hospital, Universitari Vall d'Hebron, Vall d'Hebron Barcelona Hospital Campus, Barcelona, Spain.
Vicente BebiaUnitat de Ginecologia Oncològica. Servei de Ginecología. Hospital, Universitari Vall d'Hebron, Vall d'Hebron Barcelona Hospital Campus, Barcelona, Spain. Vicente.bebia@vallhebron.cat.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6434-2112
Natalia Rodriguez Gomez-HidalgoUnitat de Ginecologia Oncològica. Servei de Ginecología. Hospital, Universitari Vall d'Hebron, Vall d'Hebron Barcelona Hospital Campus, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5115-6668
Carlos López-GilGrup de Recerca Biomèdica en Ginecología, Vall Hebron Institut de Recerca (VHIR), Vall d'Hebron Barcelona Hospital Campus, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6540-1225
Marta MiguezUnitat de Ginecologia Oncològica. Servei de Ginecología. Hospital, Universitari Vall d'Hebron, Vall d'Hebron Barcelona Hospital Campus, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6401-7192
Eva ColasGrup de Recerca Biomèdica en Ginecología, Vall Hebron Institut de Recerca (VHIR), Vall d'Hebron Barcelona Hospital Campus, Barcelona, Spain.
Asunción Pérez-BenaventeUnitat de Ginecologia Oncològica. Servei de Ginecología. Hospital, Universitari Vall d'Hebron, Vall d'Hebron Barcelona Hospital Campus, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1872-9003
Antonio Gil-Moreno *Unitat de Ginecologia Oncològica. Servei de Ginecología. Hospital, Universitari Vall d'Hebron, Vall d'Hebron Barcelona Hospital Campus, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1106-5590
Silvia Cabrera *Unitat de Ginecologia Oncològica. Servei de Ginecología. Hospital, Universitari Vall d'Hebron, Vall d'Hebron Barcelona Hospital Campus, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3164-6686

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeMolecular classification of endometrial cancer (EC) has become a promising information to tailor preoperatively the surgical treatment. We aimed to evaluate the rate of lymph node metastases (LNM) in patients with EC according to molecular profile.

methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis were performed according to PRISMA guidelines by searching in two major electronic databases (PubMed and Scopus), including original articles reporting lymph node metastases according to the molecular classification of EC as categorized in the ESGO-ESMO-ESP guidelines.

resultsFifteen studies enrolling 3056 patients were included. Pooled prevalence LNM when considering only patients undergoing lymph node assessment was 4% for POLE-mutated (95%CI: 0-12%), 22% for no specific molecular profile (95% CI: 9-39%), 23% for Mismatch repair-deficiency (95%CI: 10-40%) and 31% for p53-abnormal (95%CI: 24-39%).

conclusionsThe presence of LNM seems to be influenced by molecular classification. P53-abnormal group presents the highest rate of nodal involvement, and POLE-mutated the lowest.

Indexed as

Endometrial NeoplasmsLymphatic MetastasisBiomarkers, TumorDNA Polymerase IIFemaleHumansLymph NodesMutationPoly-ADP-Ribose Binding ProteinsTumor Suppressor Protein p53Biomarkers, TumorDNA Polymerase IIPOLE protein, humanPoly-ADP-Ribose Binding ProteinsTumor Suppressor Protein p53Endometrial cancerLymph node involvementMolecular classification

Identifiers

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.