Prognostic significance of co‐existent adenomyosis on outcomes and tumor characteristics of endometrial cancer: A meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective Published data on the impact of co‐existent adenomyosis on the prognosis of patients with endometrial cancer remains elusive, with studies reporting conflicting results. We conducted this meta‐analysis to evaluate the prognostic significance of co‐existent adenomyosis on clinical outcomes and tumor characteristics of endometrial cancer patients. Methods A comprehensive literature review of multiple databases was conducted; quality assessment of eligible studies was performed by the Newcastle‐Ottawa scale (NOS). The outcomes of interest were compared in endometrial cancer patients with or without adenomyosis. Hazards ratios (HR) and Odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated as a measure of effects. Results Fourteen retrospective observational studies comprising 1308 endometrial cancer patients with adenomyosis and 3734 patients without adenomyosis were included in this meta‐analysis. Results indicated that endometrial cancer patients with adenomyosis was significantly associated with an increased overall survival rate (HR = 0.51; 95% CI = 0.38–0.69; P < 0.00001), but not with disease‐free survival rate (HR = 0.68; 95% CI = 0.30–1.53; P = 0.35); besides, significantly associated with decreased ratio of deep myometrial invasion (OR = 0.45; 95% CI = 0.33–0.60; P < 0.00001), lymphovascular space invasion (OR = 0.44; 95% CI = 0.29–0.68; P = 0.0002), an increased ratio of histological grade 1 (OR = 1.84; 95% CI = 1.34–2.53; P = 0.0002) and FIGO I‐II (OR = 1.85; 95% CI = 1.49–2.30; P < 0.00001). However, there was no significant difference in pathological type and lymph node metastasis. There was a low to high heterogeneity with I 2 ranging from 0 to 67%. Conclusion This meta‐analysis indicated that co‐existent adenomyosis with endometrial cancer is associated with favorable tumor characteristics and could serve as a potential protective factor for the prognosis of 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 | 0.003 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".