Clinical Outcomes of Surgically Unresectable Endometrial Cancers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the outcomes of patients with unresectable endometrial cancer managed with definitive or neoadjuvant radiation (RT) and/or chemotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with unresectable stages II to IVA endometrial cancer who were treated with curative intent between January 2000 and March 2018 were identified. Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with receipt of surgery. Multivariate Cox regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with OS and DFS. RESULTS: Of the 59 patients identified, the median age was 63 years (range: 37 to 88 y) and histology was endometrioid in 59%. Median follow-up was 2.2 years (range: 0.3 to 9.8 y). Seventeen patients (29%) received neoadjuvant chemotherapy, 28 (47%) neoadjuvant radiation, and 14 (24%) definitive RT; 39 (66%) underwent surgery. Patients who received surgery had higher 3-year OS and DFS than those who did not (84% vs. 41%; P<0.001 and 56% vs. 11%; P<0.001, respectively). Factors associated with higher odds of surgical resection included younger age, endometrioid histology, and earlier stage. Younger age, endometrioid histology, and surgical resection were significantly associated with higher OS. Surgical resection was also associated with higher DFS. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical resection following RT and/or chemotherapy for locally advanced, unresectable endometrial cancer is associated with higher DFS and OS and more likely to be achieved in endometrioid subtypes.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".