Early risk prediction in endometrial cancer using biomarker and machine learning models: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol.

backgroundGlobally, endometrial cancer (EC) is among the most prevalent gynaecological cancers, with rising incidence driven by demographic and metabolic changes. Accurate early prognostic assessment is essential to guide personalized treatment and improve long-term outcomes. Traditional clinicopathological prognostic methods-including FIGO (International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics) staging, tumor grade, and histological subtype remain the current standard but have limitations in detecting early recurrence risk. In recent years, biomarker-based prognostic signatures and machine-learning (ML) guided risk models, including radiomics and multi-omics approaches, have emerged as promising tools for improving prognostic accuracy. However, no systematic review and meta-analysis have comprehensively evaluated whether these biomarker or ML-based prognostic models offer improved early risk prediction compared with conventional methods in EC.

methodsWe will undertake a comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Scopus, IEEE Xplore, and Web of Science from 2010 to 2025. Two reviewers will independently perform title/abstract screening, full-text assessment, data extraction, and quality appraisal, with arbitration by a third reviewer where necessary. Studies developing, validating, or evaluating biomarker-based, radiomics-based and ML-guided prognostic models in human EC patients will be eligible for inclusion. Purely laboratory-based biomarker discovery studies that do not develop or evaluate a prognostic model in human participants will be excluded. Outcomes of interest include measures of prognostic performance such as AUC (area under the curve), C-index (concordance index), time-dependent AUC, calibration metrics, hazard ratios for survival outcomes, and decision analytic measures. Risk of bias will be assessed using PROBAST (Prediction model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool) and QUIPS (Quality in Prognosis Studies), and certainty of evidence will be summarized using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). When feasible, meta-analysis of performance metrics will be performed using random-effects models with restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimation, with subgroup analysis restricted to histological subtype when sufficient data permits. DISCUSSION: This systematic review will synthesize current evidence on the prognostic performance of biomarker and ML-guided prognostic models in EC, comparing them with conventional clinicopathological risk assessment methods. Findings will help clarify whether emerging model types offer meaningful improvements in the early prognostic accuracy, provide insight into methodological limitations of existing models, and identify gaps in evidence requiring future research. This review will support clinicians, researchers, and policymakers seeking to integrate precision-based prognostic tools into EC care. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD420251230895.