ReviewAbdominal radiology (New York)2026
The updated 2023 staging of endometrial cancer: tips for MRI interpretation.
Review in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aims to highlight the major modifications introduced in the FIGO 2023 staging system for endometrial cancer (EC) and their implications for MRI interpretation.
methodsThis pictorial essay was based on a retrospective review of 27 histologically confirmed cases of endometrial cancer (EC) imaged between 2009 and 2023 at our institution. Cases were selected to represent a broad spectrum of FIGO 2009 and FIGO 2023 stages, emphasizing features with updated staging implications. Inclusion criteria were availability of preoperative pelvic MRI and complete histopathological data, including molecular classification when available. Exclusion criteria included suboptimal image quality or incomplete clinical records. MRI assessments were performed by two radiologists with 25 years of experience in gynecological imaging, respectively. In illustrative examples where inter-reader differences arose, consensus was reached after joint review; however, no formal inter-reader agreement statistics (e.g., kappa values) were calculated, given the descriptive nature of the study.
resultsThe revised FIGO 2023 staging incorporates molecular subtypes, refines classification criteria, and improves the prognostic significance of MRI findings in EC staging.
conclusionThe integration of histopathology, molecular markers, and MRI features enhances diagnostic accuracy and treatment planning.
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.