ArticleGynecologic oncology reports2026
Proton beam therapy as an effective treatment option for recurrent endometrial cancer.
Article in Gynecologic oncology reports, 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of proton beam therapy (PBT) for recurrent endometrial cancer (REC) and to identify predictors of local control (LC). Methods: We retrospectively reviewed REC patients treated with PBT at our institution between 2008 and 2021. LC, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and prognostic factors were analyzed. Toxicities were graded according to CTCAE v5.0. Results: Nine patients with a total of 14 lesions were included (median follow-up, 36.4 months). The 1- and 2-year LC rates were 80.2 % and 68.8 %, respectively. Median PFS and OS were 13.6 and 36.4 months, respectively. Tumor size significantly influenced LC, with lesions < 22.5 mm showing superior outcomes. No grade ≥ 3 toxicities attributable to PBT were observed. Conclusions: These findings suggest that PBT may be a safe and effective salvage treatment for REC, particularly in patients with smaller tumors.
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.