ArticleJournal of gynecologic oncology2026
Clinical application value of the updated FIGO 2023 classification compared with FIGO 2009 for endometrial cancer staging in a Chinese cohort.
Article in Journal of gynecologic oncology, 2026. 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.
- Association of Molecular Classification with FIGO Stage and Survival Outcomes in Endometrial Cancer.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the predictive performance of the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2009 and FIGO 2023 staging systems for endometrial cancer (EC) and to assess whether FIGO 2023 system better predicts patient prognosis.
methodsA retrospective analysis of 640 EC patients was conducted, with staging according to the 2009 and 2023 FIGO systems. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, hazard ratios (HRs), Harrell's concordance index (C-index), and Akaike's Information Criterion (AIC) were used to assess model performance.
resultsA change to a higher substage occurred in 148 patients (23.1%), whereas 12 patients (1.9%) were down-staged, based on the FIGO 2009 staging system. Among early-stage patients, 9 and 62 were reclassified from early-stage (I and II) to IAm
conclusionThe FIGO 2023 system provided a better model fit and higher predictive accuracy than the FIGO 2009 system. Molecular subtyping was crucial for prognoses of patients with advanced EC (stage III/IV).
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.