ArticleGynecologic oncology reports2024
Endometrial cancer treatment and outcomes in Argentina: ECHOS-A real-world study.
Article in Gynecologic oncology reports, 2024. 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Real-world data for patients with endometrial cancer (EC) are limited, particularly in Latin America. We present treatment pattern findings from ECHOS-A - Endometrial Cancer Health Outcomes Study in Argentina. Materials and methods: A retrospective study using clinical data from privately insured patients with EC diagnosed from 2010 to 2019. Index (diagnosis proxy) was first date of an EC-related health term or treatment. Demographics, clinical characteristics, and FIGO staging were described. Disease progression and survival were assessed until study end, loss to follow-up, or death. Results: Of 805 patients with EC, 77.4 % (n = 623/805) received any treatment and 22.6 % (n = 182/805) received none. Among those treated, 31.8 % (n = 198/623) had first-line (1L) systemic therapy, and 45.5 % (n = 90/198) proceeded to second-line (2L) therapy. Mean follow-up was 33.6 (SD 31.8) months. Of those receiving any treatment, 87.3 % (n = 544/623) had FIGO stage data (I, 62.9 %; II, 18.6 %; III, 13.6 %; IV, 5.0 %). Treatment by class in 1L and 2L, respectively, were platinum chemotherapy, 73.7 %, 36.7 %; non-platinum chemotherapy, 73.7 %, 62.2 %; immunotherapy, 1.0 %, 11.1 %; hormone therapy, 17.7 %, 26.7 %. Carboplatin/paclitaxel was the most frequent 1L (52.5 %) and 2L (14.4 %) regimen. Mean time to progression was 14.1 (SD 16.3) and 8.8 (SD 8.3) months in 1L and 2L, respectively. Adjusted 1- to 5-year risk of progression/death was 46.5-77.5 % and 65.0-86.2 % in 1L and 2L, respectively. Conclusions: Approximately one-quarter of patients with EC received no treatment, and approximately two-thirds were not treated with 1L systemic therapy. Efforts to better understand the reasons for these treatment patterns are crucial for improving patient outcomes.
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.