MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410252512 · doi:10.1016/j.ijgc.2025.101926

Leading causes of death after a diagnosis of endometrial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2025· review· en· W4410252512 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Heather J. Agnew, Holly Baker‐Rand, Sarah Kitson, Emma J. Crosbie

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Gynecological Cancer · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEndometrial and Cervical Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisEndometrial cancerGynecologyOncologyCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives Despite curative treatment, an endometrial cancer diagnosis is associated with an elevated risk of death compared with age-matched women in the general population. This study aimed to quantify their risk of death from endometrial cancer, cardiovascular disease and other causes. Methods A systematic review of Medline, Embase and CENTRAL databases was performed to February 2024. Studies reporting cause of death following a diagnosis of endometrial cancer were included. Mortality rates and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a random effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed through visual inspection of forest plots and the I 2 statistic. Risk of bias and evidence quality were appraised using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and GRADE, respectively. The effect of ethnicity, stage, grade and time from diagnosis was examined. Results In total, 22 studies including 323,551 participants were analysed and 102,711 (31.7%) died within 20 years of diagnosis, 62.6% (n=64,155) from non-endometrial cancer causes. In the twelve studies that reported cardiovascular death, 24.6% of participants (n=24,309) died from cardiovascular disease. Those with local disease at presentation were more likely to die from non-endometrial cancer causes than those with advanced disease at presentation (48.9% vs. 13.5%). Two studies reported cause of death by ethnicity; overall, Black individuals were more likely to die than individuals of White or Other ethnicities (40.8% vs. 27.9% vs. 18.9%). Deaths related to non-endometrial cancer causes, including cardiovascular disease, overtook endometrial cancer-specific deaths >5 years after diagnosis. Significant heterogeneity was noted, despite sub-group analyses, and the findings were based on very-low certainty evidence. Conclusion Individuals with a history of endometrial cancer are at increased risk of death from other causes. Oncology follow-up appointments provide the ideal opportunity to optimise cardiovascular risk factors to reduce preventable deaths. Future research needs to reflect the global majority.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
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: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0160.040
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.134
GPT teacher head0.445
Teacher spread0.311 · 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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Gynecological CancerSame topicEndometrial and Cervical Cancer TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207