Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41257634›Full record

SynthesisBMC cancer2025

Insights and limitations of endometrial cancer risk prediction models for clinical applicability: a systematic review.

Sabine El-Halabi, Alison Zhijin Luo, Aline Talhouk

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Sabine El-HalabiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, 5th Floor (593), VGH Research Pavilion 828 West 10th ave, Vancouver, BC, V5Z 1M9, Canada.
Alison Zhijin LuoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, 5th Floor (593), VGH Research Pavilion 828 West 10th ave, Vancouver, BC, V5Z 1M9, Canada.
Aline TalhoukDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, 5th Floor (593), VGH Research Pavilion 828 West 10th ave, Vancouver, BC, V5Z 1M9, Canada. a.talhouk@ubc.ca.

Funding

CIHR F19-04920
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEndometrial cancer (EC) is the most common gynecologic cancer in high-income countries, with rising incidence rates. Risk prediction models can identify high-risk individuals, enabling targeted prevention and early intervention. Despite the development of several multivariable risk models aimed at stratifying EC risk, none have yet been adopted for clinical use in cancer prevention. This systematic review critically examines the performance, validation, and clinical applicability of existing EC risk prediction models.

methodsWe systematically searched online search engines PubMed and Ovid MEDLINE for EC risk model publications written in English from January 1, 2000, to October 9, 2024. Studies were selected based on the inclusion of multivariable models for EC risk estimation. Data extraction focused on cohort characteristics, predictors included, validation efforts, and model performance metrics such as discrimination (C-statistics or AUROC) and calibration (E/O ratio or calibration slopes). The quality of model reporting was assessed using the TRIPOD-AI guidelines.

resultsNine risk prediction models were identified, predominantly based on epidemiological factors, with four incorporating polygenic risk scores, and one using blood biomarkers. Most models were developed in datasets of postmenopausal women of White or European ancestry from Western countries. Only five models were externally validated; most exhibited moderate discrimination (AUROC ranging from 0.64 to 0.77). Calibration varied, with some models showing significant overestimation of risk. Importantly, the lack of racial and ethnic diversity in the development datasets limits their generalizability, particularly for non-White populations.

conclusionsCurrent EC risk prediction models show moderate performance but suffer from limited external validation, homogeneity in demographics, and exclusion of diverse populations. Future research should focus on broadening participant diversity and incorporating new risk factors, such as hormonal intrauterine device use, hysterectomies, environmental exposures, and socio-economic status. Developing dynamic models that account for these factors and model outcomes that span various forms of the disease can improve clinical relevance. Personalized, risk-based approaches targeting high-risk groups may offer a viable path forward for EC screening and prevention strategies, ensuring more equitable cancer care and improving patient outcomes.

Indexed as

Endometrial NeoplasmsModels, StatisticalFemaleHumansRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsCalibrationDiscriminationEndometrial cancerIncidencePredictionPreventionRisk factorsRisk models

Identifiers

PMID41257634
PMCPMC12628995

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.