ArticleGeburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde2026
Statement by the Uterus Commission of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynäkologische Onkologie [German Gynecological Oncology Group] (AGO) on the ESGO-ESTRO-ESP Guideline 2025.
Article in Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde, 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
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The ESGO-ESTRO-ESP guideline 2025 integrates the molecular classification into prognostic risk stratification and therapeutic decisions for patients with endometrial cancer (EC). In particular, a refined stratification of the molecular subgroup No-Specific-Molecular-Profile (NSMP) has been recently introduced to better reflect its pronounced prognostic heterogeneity. Retrospective analyses by Jamieson et al. and Vermij et al. demonstrate that histological tumor grade and immunohistochemical estrogen receptor expression represent independent prognostic factors within the NSMP subgroup, allowing for the identification of a large subgroup with an excellent prognosis and a small subgroup with a poor prognosis. Additional exploratory post hoc analyses suggest a potential differential benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy in ER-negative NSMP EC. However, these observations remain hypothesis-generating and lack prospective validation. In addition, the exact cut-off for ER-positivity remains unclear. The ESGO guideline defines prognostic risk groups according to the estimated 5-year risk of recurrence and derives recommendations for adjuvant therapy accordingly. Key randomized trials, including PORTEC-1, PORTEC-2, PORTEC-3, GOG-249 and GOG-258, are incorporated alongside molecular subgroups, whose biological characteristics increasingly inform treatment intensity. In contrast, the German S3 guideline adopts a more conservative methodological approach, incorporating molecular markers primarily as supportive information, particularly in the absence of prospective evidence guiding specific therapeutic decisions. With respect to surgical management in early-stage disease (Fédération Internationale de Gynécologie et d'Obstétrique [FIGO] I-II), both guidelines show substantial agreement, especially regarding the preference for minimally invasive surgery and the avoidance of unnecessary radicality. Differences mainly relate to the indication for sentinel lymph node staging. This statement aims to provide a balanced contextualization of these conceptual differences and to support an informed discussion of current international developments.
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.