Adjuvant Hormonal Therapy for Stage I Endometrial Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
QUESTION: What is the role of hormonal therapy as adjuvant therapy in patients with stage i endometrial cancer? PERSPECTIVES: There is little consensus on the role of adjuvant treatment for patients with stage i endometrial cancer. Although the use of hormonal therapy has been established in advanced disease, less agreement has emerged concerning the benefits of adjuvant hormonal therapy for patients with early-stage disease. The objective of the present evidence series was to review the existing literature on the role of hormonal therapy as adjuvant therapy in patients with stage i endometrial cancer. OUTCOMES: REPORTS WERE SOUGHT THAT INCLUDED AT LEAST ONE OF THE FOLLOWING OUTCOMES: overall survival, disease-free survival, recurrence (local, or distant, or both), adverse effects, and quality of life. Because of the potential for long-term adverse effects with adjuvant hormonal treatment in this patient population, especially with regard to thromboembolic or cardiovascular events, the rates of non-cancer-related death were also of interest. METHODOLOGY: The medline, embase, and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials, practice guidelines, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. The resulting evidence informed the development of the clinical practice guideline. The systematic review with meta-analyses and practice guideline were approved by the Report Approval Panel of the Program in Evidence-Based Care, and by the Gynecology Cancer Disease Site Group (DSG). RESULTS: Nine randomized trials and one published meta-analysis comparing adjuvant hormonal therapy with no adjuvant therapy in women with stage i endometrial cancer constituted the evidence base. One trial reported a statistically significant survival benefit with adjuvant progestogen as compared with no further treatment (97% vs. 69%, p < 0.001). In that trial, the treatment group had a higher number of patients with less myometrial invasion, and a lower number of patients with advanced-stage disease. These differences in baseline characteristics between the randomized groups were considered to be clinically important. In addition, the results of that trial were not consistent with those of other trials, and the trial was a source of statistical heterogeneity when data were pooled across trials. In two of the nine randomized trials, statistically significant recurrence-free benefits were detected with adjuvant hormonal therapy as compared with no further therapy. In one trial, the difference between the rates of recurrence was 16%; however, the methodologic concerns related to that that trial limited its relevance. In the other trial, the difference between the rates of recurrence was 5%. In that trial, patients were at a high risk of recurrence. None of the remaining seven randomized trials reported any significant difference in recurrence rates between treatment groups. The meta-analysis identified in the literature detected no statistically significant recurrence-free or overall survival benefit associated with adjuvant hormonal therapy as compared with no adjuvant therapy [odds ratio (or): 1.05; 95% confidence interval (ci): 0.88 to 1.24). Those results are consistent with the results of the meta-analysis in the present report, which included an additional two trials (or: 1.10; 95% ci: 0.91 to 1.34). TARGET POPULATION: This clinical recommendation applies to women with newly diagnosed stage i endometrial cancer. RECOMMENDATION: The available evidence does not demonstrate any benefit for adjuvant hormonal therapy. The use of hormonal therapy is not recommended as adjuvant treatment for patients with stage i endometrial cancer.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".