ArticleInternational journal of women's health2026
A Risk Prediction Model for Progression-Free Survival in Endometrial Cancer Integrating Clinicopathological Variables and Routine Laboratory Indicators.
Article in International journal of women's health, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: To develop and validate a prediction model for progression-free survival (PFS) in endometrial cancer (EC) using routine clinicopathological and preoperative laboratory data, and assess the incremental prognostic value of inflammatory, nutritional, and tumor markers. Methods: This single-center retrospective cohort study included 282 EC patients receiving initial treatment. Clinicopathological data and laboratory results from within 7 days pre-surgery were extracted. PFS was the primary endpoint. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses were used to identify independent prognostic factors for model construction. Internal validation was performed via bootstrapping. Model performance was evaluated using the corrected C-index, time-dependent ROC curves, calibration plots, and decision curve analysis (DCA). Results: During follow-up, 76 PFS events occurred. Compared to the non-event group, patients with events had more advanced FIGO stages, a higher proportion of non-endometrioid histology, and more pronounced inflammatory and hypercoagulable states. Multivariate analysis identified FIGO stage III-IV (HR = 1.95, Conclusion: This prediction model based on readily available clinicopathological and laboratory indicators demonstrated good internal performance for PFS risk stratification in endometrial cancer; however, external validation is required before broader clinical application. NLR and CA125 provide incremental prognostic value beyond traditional staging and pathology, which may aid in personalizing postoperative management.
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.