ArticleGynecologic oncology reports2024
Endometrial cancer recurrence after the use of a uterine manipulator during laparoscopic surgery.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is the standard approach for the staging and treatment of early-stage endometrial cancer (EC) and often includes use of a uterine manipulator. Uterine perforation is a known risk in this setting, and the impact of perforation and tumor spillage on cancer recurrence is largely unknown. The aim of this study was to assess the association between uterine perforation and/or tumor spillage at the time of MIS for low-grade, early-stage EC on disease recurrence. Methods: A retrospective single-center cohort study was conducted including patients who underwent MIS for management of low-grade and early-stage EC with use of a uterine manipulator. Rates of disease recurrence were compared between patients with and without documented uterine perforation and/or tumor spillage at the time of surgery. Statistical significance was defined as p < 0.05. Results: 408 patients with low-grade and early-stage EC were identified from the tumor registry and included in the study. Uterine perforation and/or tumor spillage was documented in 5.9 % (24/408) of cases. Recurrent disease was noted in 8.1 % (33/408) of the entire cohort. Most patients had isolated local recurrence (23/33; 69.7 %), while 9.1 % (3/33) had distant recurrence and 21.2 % (7/33) had both local and distant recurrence. There was no association between uterine perforation and/or tumor spillage and recurrence rates (p = 0.67). The trend in disease free survival was shorter among patients with these complications. Conclusions: Our analysis did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference in disease recurrence rates among patients with early-stage, low-grade EC based on uterine perforation and/or tumor spillage at the time of surgery.
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.