ArticleOncology and therapy2025
A Real-World Retrospective Observational Study of Patients with Advanced/Recurrent Endometrial Cancer Across England.
Article in Oncology and therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Real-World Use of Dostarlimab Plus Chemotherapy in Advanced or Recurrent dMMR Endometrial Cancer: A Nationwide Cohort Study in France.BioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy · 2026Article
- A Real-World Retrospective Observational Study of Patients with Advanced/Recurrent Endometrial Cancer Across England.Oncology and therapy · 2025Article
- The molecular classification ushers in a new era for the treatment of advanced and recurrent endometrial cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionRobust real-world data (RWD) on endometrial cancer (EC) are lacking. In the United Kingdom (UK), molecular classification of EC based on tumour mismatch repair (MMR) status, either MMR-deficient (dMMR) or MMR-proficient (MMRp), has been recommended at diagnosis since 2020. This study characterised patients with advanced/recurrent EC, documented treatment pathways and evaluated clinical outcomes stratified by MMR status using RWD from National Health Service (NHS) trusts in England.
methodsThis retrospective, observational study captured electronic health records (EHRs) from seven NHS trusts from 2000 to 2023. Clinical outcomes included overall survival (OS) and time to next treatment (TTNT).
resultsData were retrieved from 731 patients with EC (79% advanced, 21% recurrent). Overall, 56.63% of patients received systemic treatment; most received platinum-based chemotherapy in first line (1L). MMR status was identified for 166 patients, with 25.30% being dMMR. Overall, 1L median TTNT was 1.22 years (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02-1.37). Median OS from the start of 1L was 1.80 years (95% CI 1.59-2.16) in the whole cohort, 4.25 years (95% CI 1.67-not reached [NR]) in the dMMR group, 2.36 years (95% CI 2.10-2.36) in the MMRp group and 1.64 years (95% CI 1.32-1.98) in the unknown MMR group.
conclusionsAlthough interpretation is hampered by small sample sizes, this analysis is suggestive of a difference in outcomes between MMR subgroups, underlining the importance of biomarker testing for patients with EC. Historic recording of MMR status was low; consistent testing and improvements in linking EHRs to biomarker data are needed to examine the relationship between outcomes and MMR status.
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.