MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392472953 · doi:10.3390/jcm13051496

The Role of Adjuvant Therapy for the Treatment of Micrometastases in Endometrial Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2024· review· en· W4392472953 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Carlo Ronsini, Stefania Napolitano, Irene Iavarone, Pietro Fumiento, Maria Giovanna Vastarella, Antonella Reino, Rossella Molitierno, L. Cobellis, Pasquale De Franciscis, Stefano Cianci

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Medicine · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEndometrial and Cervical Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEndometrial cancerOncologyInternal medicineLymphadenectomyMeta-analysisAdjuvant therapyLymphovascular invasionAdjuvantSystematic reviewRadiation therapyCancerMetastasisMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Endometrial cancer is the most incident gynecological cancer. Lymph node dissemination is one of the most important factors for the patient’s prognosis. Pelvic lymph nodes are the primary site of extra-uterine dissemination in endometrial cancer (EC), setting the 5-year survival to 44–52%. It is standard practice for radiation therapy (RT) and/or chemotherapy (CTX) to be given as adjuvant treatments to prevent the progression of micrometastases. Also, administration of EC patients with RT and/or CTX regimens before surgery may decrease micrometastases, hence the need for lymphadenectomy. The primary aim of the systematic review and meta-analysis is to assess whether adjuvant RT and/or CTX improve oncological outcomes through the management of micrometastases and nodal recurrence. We performed systematic research using the string “Endometrial Neoplasms” [Mesh] AND “Lymphatic Metastasis/therapy” [Mesh]. The methods for this study were specified a priori based on the recommendations in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Outcomes were 5-year overall survival, progression-free survival, recurrence rate, and complications rate. We assessed the quality of studies using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS). A total of 1682 patients with stage I-to-IV EC were included. Adjuvant treatment protocols involved external-beam RT, brachytherapy, and CTX either alone or in combination. The no-treatment group showed a non-statistically significant higher recurrence risk than any adjuvant treatment group (OR 1.39 [95% CI 0.68–2.85] p = 0.36). The no-treatment group documented a non-statistically significant higher risk of death than those who underwent any adjuvant treatment (RR 1.47 [95% CI 0.44–4.89] p = 0.53; I2 = 55% p = 0.000001). Despite the fact that early-stage EC may show micrometastases, adjuvant treatment is not significantly associated with better survival outcomes, and the combination of EBRT and CTX is the most valid option in the early stages.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0160.034
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.299
GPT teacher head0.538
Teacher spread0.239 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical MedicineSame topicEndometrial and Cervical Cancer TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207