Impact of the adjuvant management and risk factors on survival in FIGO stage 3 endometrial cancer patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Patients with FIGO stage III endometrial cancer routinely receive adjuvant therapy. The purpose of this study was to evaluate overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) in patients with stage IIIA to IIIC2 patients by treatment modality received and risk factors. Materials/methods: Patients with stage III endometrial cancer treated from 2000-2010 were identified in the provincial cancer registry. Clinicopathologic characteristics, adjuvant treatments and outcomes were compared using descriptive and multivariable analyses. Results: 261 patients had stage 3 endometrial cancer, 132 with stage IIIA, 9 with IIIB, 85 with IIIC1 and 35 with IIIC2. 39 had FIGO grade 1 disease; 73, grade 2; 147, grade 3. 160 had endometrioid and 35 had serous carcinoma. 161 patients received sequential adjuvant chemotherapy (CT) and radiotherapy (RT); 33 received RT only; 32 received CT only; 35 received neither. 5-year (5Y) DFS and OS were similar among stage IIIA (DFS 46.7%, OS 58.5%), IIIB (DFS 50.8%, OS 58.5%), IIIC1 (DFS 44%, OS 49.9%) and IIIC2 (DFS 42%, OS 41.6%). Use of adjuvant RT was associated with improved median DFS (53.7 vs 14.7m, p<0.00001) and OS (61.9 vs 25.7m, p<0.00001) compared to no RT. Likewise, use of adjuvant CT was also associated with improved DFS (54.8 vs 16.5m, p<0.00001) and OS (62.9 vs 26.5m, p<0.00001) compared to no CT. Those who received both chemotherapy and radiotherapy had better outcomes with 5-year DFS (58.3%) and OS (65.2%), compared with those who received monotherapy. On multivariate analysis, grade 3 disease, deep myometrial invasion >50%, and no adjuvant RT or CT were identified as adversely impacting DFS and OS. Conclusion: In stage III endometrial cancer patients, use of both chemotherapy and radiation therapy was associated with improved DFS and OS and therefore should be recommended in all eligible patients after resection.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".