SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2025
Long-term outcomes in patients with endometrial cancer after sentinel lymph node biopsy versus lymphadenectomy alone: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to assess the prognosis of endometrial cancer (EC) patients after sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) or lymph node dissection (LND) alone. Methods: EMBASE, PUBMED, COCHRANE, and WEB of SCIENCE were thoroughly searched for relevant articles until October 2024. The outcomes of interest encompassed overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and disease-specific survival (DSS). Data analysis was made in STATA 18.0. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale tool was leveraged to appraise study quality. Results: 13 studies were included, involving 36621 EC patients. No difference was revealed in OS between SLNB and LND (HR=1.04, 95%CI: 0.80-1.33; P=0.789). In subgroup analyses, the SLNB group from survival curves had worse OS (HR=1.63, 95%CI: 1.04-2.56; P=0.035); the SLNB group with intermediate- to high-risk EC had better OS (HR=0.20, 95%CI: 0.08-0.49; P<0.001). No difference was revealed in PFS between SLNB and LND (HR=0.99, 95%CI: 0.76-1.28; P=0.927). SLNB had better PFS in Asia (HR=0.44, 95% CI: 0.20-0.98, P=0.046) and stage I-III EC (HR=0.46, 95% CI: 0.24-0.89; P=0.021). No statistical difference was found in DSS (HR=3.18, 95%CI: 0.91-11.07; P=0.069). Conclusion: SLNB is an effective alternative to conventional LND in either low- or intermediate-high-risk EC patients. However, due to the retrospective nature of most included studies and the limited data on high-risk patients, further prospective randomized controlled trials are warranted to validate these findings. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO, identifier CRD42024489323.
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.