Comparing treatment strategies for placental site trophoblastic tumour (PSTT): study protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Placental site trophoblastic tumour (PSTT) is a rare type of gestational trophoblastic malignancy. Despite different guidelines recommending surgery, chemotherapy or immunotherapy, there has been no optimal first-line treatment owing to its rarity. Direct comparisons of efficacy and safety across interventions remain limited. We aim to perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to explore each PSTT treatment and to help develop individualised, evidence-based clinical decisions. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This systematic review, registered on PROSPERO and adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-P 2015 guidelines, will evaluate all available treatments for PSTT. Databases (PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science) will be searched from inception to 31 May 2025 using Medical Subject Headings terms and keywords related to PSTT. The inclusion criteria will be studies reporting confirmed PSTT patients and treatment outcomes; the exclusion criteria will be non-human studies, abstracts and reviews. Two researchers will independently screen studies, resolving discrepancies via discussion or a third reviewer. Manual reference checks will complement searches. Data on study characteristics, interventions (chemotherapy, surgery or other treatments) and outcomes (overall survival (OS), progression-free survival, adverse events, fertility) will be extracted. The primary outcome will be the OS. Quality will be assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for observational studies and V.2 Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (RoB 2) for randomised controlled trials. Statistical analyses will be conducted via Review Manager 5.4.1 and Stata 16.0. The ORs, along with 95% CIs will be calculated with random-effects or fixed-effects models depending on the heterogeneity between studies. The sensitivity analyses and publication bias (funnel plots, Begg's/Egger's tests) will be assessed if indicated. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: As this study analyses previously published data, no additional ethical approval is required, nor will patient safety be compromised. The collected results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal following PRISMA-NMA guidelines. No datasets will be generated or analysed during the current study. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD420251013082.
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 | 0.049 | 0.083 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.029 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.061 | 0.005 |
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".