Overall and progression-free survival in endometrial carcinoma: A single-center retrospective study of patients treated between 2000-2018
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Investigating survival in endometrial cancer (EC) is crucial to determine the effectiveness of overall management as it will reflect on the level of care provided among this population. OBJECTIVE: The study was conducted to analyze the overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in treated endometrial carcinoma and to determine the associated predictors. DESIGN: Retrospective SETTING: Department of obstetrics and gynecology in university tertiary hospital PATIENTS AND METHODS: Baseline demographic and clinical data, tumor characteristics and perioperative and outcome data were collected from consecutive patients treated for EC between 2000 and 2018. Kaplan-Meier method and multivariate Cox regression were used to analyze factors and predictors of OS and PFS. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: OS, PFS and prognostic factors SAMPLE SIZE: 200 RESULT: Endometrioid type was the most common type accounting for 78.5% of the cases, followed by papillary serous carcinoma (18.5%). At diagnosis, 21.5% were stage III, and 12.0% were stage IV. Invasiveness features showed involvement of the myometrium (96.5%), lymph vessels (36.5%), cervix stroma (18.5%), lower segment (22.0%), and parametrium (7.0%). The majority of patients had open surgery (80.0%), while 11.5% and 7.0% had laparoscopy and robotic surgery, respectively. Staging and debulking were performed in 89.0% of patients, and 12.5% of patients had residual disease of more than 2 cm. The mean OS and PFS were 104.4 (95% CI=91.8–117.0) months and 96.8 (95% CI=83.9–109.7) months, respectively. The 5-year OS and PFS were 62.5% and 46.9%, respectively. The majority of the factors we assessed were significantly associated with OS or PFS. However, reduced OS was independently associated age ≥60 years (hazard ratio [HR]=1.99, P =.010), papillary serous carcinoma (HR=2.35, P =.021), and residual disease (HR=3.84, P =.007); whereas PFS was predicted by age ≥60 years (HR=1.87, P =.014) and residual disease (HR=3.22, P =.040). CONCLUSION: There is a need for a national strategy to tackle the growing burden of EC, by identifying the locally-specific incidence, delayed diagnosis and survival outcome. LIMITATIONS: This was a single-center study conducted at a tertiary center, which may question the generalizability of the findings, as the sample may be biased by overrepresentation with patients who were diagnosed at an advanced stage.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».