ArticleBJC reports2024
Survival benefit of cytoreductive surgery in patients with primary stage IV endometrial cancer: a systematic review & meta-analysis.
Article in BJC reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the survival outcomes following cytoreductive surgery (CRS) in patients with primary stage IV endometrial cancer (EC).
methodsWe systematically searched the Cochrane Library, Embase, MEDLINE/PubMed, and Web of Science for original studies reporting survival outcomes of primary stage IV EC after complete, optimal, and incomplete CRS. Pooled hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS) comparing optimal CRS with incomplete CRS were calculated using a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 and the Q-test.
resultsTwelve studies, including 748 patients, were analysed. 187 patients underwent complete CRS, and 146 patients optimal CRS. Ten studies reported a significant OS benefit after complete (18-48 months) and optimal CRS (13-34 months) compared to incomplete CRS (7-19 months). A benefit was also observed in patients with serous EC or extra- abdominal metastasis. Meta-analysis showed improved OS after complete/optimal vs. incomplete CRS (HR = 0.38, 95% CI 0.21-0.69, p = 0.0016). Heterogeneity was substantial between studies (I2 = 76.7%, p < 0.0001).
conclusionOur study supports considering CRS in all patients with primary stage IV EC if complete resection is deemed feasible, while also emphasizing the importance of weighing the harms and benefits of this extensive treatment and adopting shared decision-making. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42022302968 on May 10th, 2022.
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.