ArticleThe journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research2025
A potential inflammatory biomarker for advanced endometrial cancer treated with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab.
Article in The journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Peripheral blood lymphocyte and eosinophil dynamics with chemotherapy and pembrolizumab in cervical cancer.International journal of clinical oncology · 2026Article
- Potential biomarkers for predicting the efficacy of a pembrolizumab-containing regimen in advanced cervical cancer: A real-world analysis.Turkish journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2025Article
- A potential inflammatory biomarker for advanced endometrial cancer treated with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab.The journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research · 2025Article
- MYB Proto-Oncogene Like 2 identified as a biomarker for uterine corpus endometrial carcinoma: evidence from bioinformatics and clinical validation.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTo identify prognostic biomarkers that could predict how well patients will respond to lenvatinib/pembrolizumab (LEN/PEM). The utility of certain inflammatory biomarkers in endometrial liquid-based cytology (LBC) or peripheral blood samples, such as neutrophil counts, lymphocyte counts, and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) were explored.
methodsThe study included 25 patients with advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer who had received LEN/PEM between August 2018 and March 2024. Predictors for overall response (OR), disease control, and progression-free survival, based on neutrophil/lymphocyte counts, NLR scores of the endometrial LBC prior to initial treatment, and peripheral blood prior to initial treatment and prior to LEM/PEM treatment were compared using a receiver operating characteristic curve. Significant predictors were evaluated using the log-rank test, and multivariate analysis.
resultsAlthough neutrophil counts and NLR score in endometrial LBC prior to initial treatment were better effective predictors for OR, the most accurate predictor of a progression-free status was NLR score in peripheral blood prior to LEM/PEM (0.722, 95% CI: 0.45-0.99, sensitivity: 57.1%, specificity: 94.4%). In peripheral blood prior to LEN/PEM, the lower NLR (NLR <5.39) group had a significantly longer PFS than the higher NLR (5.39 ≤ NLR) group (p = 0.023, median survival: 13.5 vs. 3.0 months), and tended to be independently correlated with PFS (hazard ratio = 2.571; 95% CI = 0.857-7.719; p = 0.092).
conclusionInflammatory biomarkers in endometrial LBC failed to predict the efficacy of LEN/PEM, while peripheral blood NLR score sampled prior to LEN/PEM potentially could be a significant predictor.
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.