ArticleBMC surgery2024
Oncological outcomes of minimally invasive surgery in non-endometrioid endometrial Cancer patients with varying prognostic risks: a retrospective cohort study based on the ESGO/ESTRO/ESP 2020 guidelines.
Article in BMC surgery, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNon-endometrioid endometrial carcinomas (NEEC) are characterized by their rarity and adverse prognoses. This study evaluates the outcomes of open versus minimally invasive surgery (MIS) in NEEC patients stratified by prognostic risks according to the 2020 ESGO-ESTRO-ESP risk classification guidelines.
methodsA retrospective analysis was performed on 99 NEEC patients who underwent initial surgery at Fujian University Cancer Hospital. Patients were categorized into two groups: those undergoing MIS and those undergoing open surgery. We compared disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) between these groups. Cox regression analysis was employed to identify risk factors for DFS, which were further validated via bootstrap statistical methods.
resultsThe study included 31 patients in the MIS group and 68 in the open surgery group. The demographics and clinical characteristics such as age, body mass index, comorbidities, histological subtypes, and FIGO stage were similar between groups (P > 0.05). The MIS group experienced ten recurrences (1 vaginal, 2 lymph nodes, 7 distant metastases), whereas the open surgery group had seven recurrences (1 vaginal, 3 lymph nodes, 1 pelvis, 2 distant metastases), yielding recurrence rates of 10.3% versus 25.6% (P = 0.007). Besides lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI), surgical approach was also identified as an independent prognostic factor for DFS in high-risk patients (P = 0.037, 95% CI: 1.062-7.409). The constructed nomogram demonstrated a robust predictive capability with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.767. Survival analysis for high- and intermediate-risk patients showed no significant differences in OS between the two groups (P
conclusionThis investigation is the inaugural study to assess the impact of surgical approaches on NEEC patients within the framework of the latest ESGO-ESTRO-ESP risk classifications. Although MIS may offer clinical advantages, it should be approached with caution in high-risk NEEC patients due to associated poorer DFS 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.