ArticleJournal of gynecologic oncology2025
Quality indicators for endometrial cancer care in Japan.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Guideline-concordant treatment and clinical outcomes in older patients with endometrial cancer in Japan: a retrospective single-institution study.International journal of clinical oncology · 2026Article
- Survival and Safety Outcomes of Three-Cycle Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Intermediate-Risk Endometrial Cancer.Cancers · 2026Article
- Molecular mechanisms by which C1orf112 promotes endometrial cancer progression and the development and validation of a clinical scoring model.Clinical epigenetics · 2025Article
- Remodeling the tumor microenvironment: regulatory effects of β-sitosterol and luteolin on the immunosuppressive milieu in endometrial carcinoma and implications for combinatorial immunotherapy.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe incidence and mortality rates of endometrial cancer are increasing globally, including in Japan. Quality of cancer care is promoted through guideline adherence. This study aimed to establish quality indicators (QIs) for endometrial cancer and explore the factors contributing to treatment nonadherence.
methodsQIs and pattern-of-care indicators (PCIs) were developed using the Research and Development/University of California Los Angeles modified Delphi method. QIs reflect desirable healthcare patterns, whereas PCIs address treatment areas with lacking evidence. Data from the Hospital-Based Cancer Registry and Diagnosis Procedure Combination Survey were used. Patients diagnosed or treated between January 1 and December 31, 2020 were included. The reasons for nonadherence were collected. Logistic regression was used to analyze the factors influencing adherence, including age, body mass index, comorbidities, facilities, and recurrence risk.
resultsOf the 35 proposed QI candidates, 8 QIs and 9 PCIs were selected, predominantly focusing on surgical aspects. Adherence rates varied, with peritoneal lavage cytology being the highest (93.1%), and postoperative hormone replacement therapy (HRT) for patients aged <45 years being the lowest (30.9%), when focusing on process indicators. Reasons for nonadherence included patient preference and medical comorbidities as significant factors. Multivariate analysis highlighted age, clinical stage, and Barthel index as significant contributors to nonadherence.
conclusionWe developed QIs to comprehensively assess endometrial cancer treatment. Adherence rates are favorable; however, HRT has a low adherence rate. Factors leading to nonadherence include advanced age and incomplete activities of daily living, particularly in advanced stages.
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.