ArticleJournal of gynecologic oncology2025
Is presumed clinical stage I endometrial cancer using PET-CT and MRI accurate in predicting surgical staging?
Article in Journal of gynecologic oncology, 2025. 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.
- Node-RADS for preoperative locoregional nodal staging of endometrial cancer: reproducibility and accuracy assessment using CT and MRI.European radiology · 2026Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate upstaging, lymph node (LN) metastasis, and recurrence in patients with presumed stage I endometrial cancer using preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT).
methodsRetrospective review of 422 patients with presumed clinical stage I endometrial cancer diagnosed via MRI and PET-CT (July 2014-June 2023). Surgical staging included pelvic lymph nodes (PLNs) and para-aortic lymph nodes (PALNs), classifying patients as low/intermediate- or high-risk groups.
resultsPost-operative upstaging rate was 14.5% (8.8% low/intermediate-risk vs. 22.8% high-risk, p<0.001). LN metastasis occurred in 5.5% of patients (2.0% low/intermediate-risk vs. 10.5% high-risk, p<0.001), with a dual imaging negative predictive value of 0.945. PLN metastasis was 4.5% (2.0% low/intermediate vs. 8.2% high-risk, p=0.003), and PALN metastasis was 2.6% (0.4% low/intermediate-risk vs. 5.8% high-risk, p=0.001). In low/intermediate-risk group: tumors ≤2cm had 1.1% LN metastasis rate, endometrium-limited 0.8%, and ≤2cm with endometrium-limited 0.9%. Deep myometrial invasion (odds ratio [OR]=4.4; 95% confidence intervals [CIs]=1.6-12.4) and tumor size >2 cm on MRI (OR=2.9; 95% CI=0.8-9.9) increased LN metastasis risk. Median 48.5-month follow-up showed an 8.1% overall recurrence rate (4.0% low/intermediate-risk vs. 14.0% high-risk, p<0.001), with 2.4% nodal recurrences (1.2% low/intermediate-risk vs. 4.1% high-risk).
conclusionHigh-risk patients had significant upstaging, LN metastasis, and recurrence rates. Even in low/intermediate-risk groups, some patients exhibited LN metastasis and nodal recurrence, underscoring the importance of comprehensive surgical staging, including PALN evaluation, for precise diagnosis and treatment.
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.