MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414005916 · doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(25)00379-1

Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone in women with high-risk endometrial cancer (PORTEC-3): 10-year clinical outcomes and post-hoc analysis by molecular classification from a randomised phase 3 trial

2025· article· en· W4414005916 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Cathalijne Post, Stephanie M. de Boer, Melanie Powell, Linda Mileshkin, Dionyssios Katsaros, Paul Bessette, Alexandra Léary, Petronella B. Ottevanger, Mary McCormack, Pearly Khaw, Romerai D’Amico, Anthony Fyles, Cyrus Chargari, Henry C Kitchener, Viet Do, Andrea Alberto Lissoni, Diane Provencher, Catherine Genestie, Hans W. Nijman, Karen Whitmarsh, Ina M. Jürgenliemk‐Schulz, Amanda Feeney, Ludy Lutgens, Jeanette M. Bouma, Alicia León‐Castillo, Remi A. Nout, Hein Putter, Tjalling Bosse, Carien L. Creutzberg

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEndometrial and Cervical Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersNational Health and Medical Research CouncilCancer AustraliaCancer Research UKCanadian Cancer Society Research InstituteKWF KankerbestrijdingAgenzia Italiana del Farmaco, Ministero della SaluteNational Cancer Research InstituteAustralia New Zealand Gynaecological Oncology Group
KeywordsMedicinePost-hoc analysisChemoradiotherapyOncologyPost hocEndometrial cancerInternal medicineAdjuvantRadiation therapyClinical trialAdjuvant radiotherapyRandomized controlled trialCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The PORTEC-3 trial investigated the benefit of chemoradiotherapy versus pelvic radiotherapy alone for women with high-risk endometrial cancer. We present the preplanned long-term analysis of the randomised PORTEC-3 trial with a post-hoc analysis including molecular classification of the tumours. METHODS: intravenously at 3-week intervals). Randomisation was done by use of biased-coin minimisation with stratification for participating centre, lymphadenectomy, stage, and histological type. We report the primary outcomes of overall survival and recurrence-free survival at 10 years. We also report primary outcomes by molecular subgroup in a post-hoc analysis. Survival was analysed in the intention-to-treat population. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00411138) and is now complete. FINDINGS: Between Nov 23, 2006, and Dec 20, 2013, 660 eligible and evaluable patients recruited at 103 centres in six clinical trial groups across seven countries were randomly assigned to chemoradiotherapy (n=330) or radiotherapy alone (n=330). Median follow-up was 10·1 years (IQR 9·8-11·0). Estimated 10-year overall survival was 74·4% (95% CI 69·8-79·4) in the chemoradiotherapy group and 67·3% (62·3-72·7) in the radiotherapy group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·73 [95% CI 0·54-0·97], p=0·032), and 10-year recurrence-free survival was 72·8% (67·2-77·6) versus 67·4% (61·7-72·4; adjusted HR 0·74 [95% CI 0·56-0·98], p=0·034). Molecular analysis was available for 411 (62%) patients (210 [64%] of 330 patients in the chemoradiotherapy group and 201 [61%] of 330 patients in the radiotherapy group), whose characteristics were similar to the overall trial population. Post-hoc analysis by molecular class showed that, for women with p53 abnormal tumours, 10-year overall survival was 52·7% (95% CI 40·8-68·1) with chemoradiotherapy versus 36·6% (25·0 to 53·7) with radiotherapy alone (adjusted HR 0·52 [95% CI 0·30-0·91], p=0·021); 10-year recurrence-free survival was 52·6% (95% CI 38·3 to 65·0) versus 37·0% (95% CI 23·7 to 50·2; HR 0·42 [95% CI 0·24 to 0·74], p=0·0027). MMRd and POLEmut cancers did not seem to benefit from chemoradiotherapy over radiotherapy alone, whereas the effects for NSMP cancers were modulated by oestrogen-receptor status. INTERPRETATION: 10-year overall survival and recurrence-free survival were improved for patients with high-risk endometrial cancer treated with adjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone, with most clinically relevant benefit suggested for p53 abnormal cancers. FUNDING: Dutch Cancer Society, Cancer Research UK, National Health and Medical Research Council Australia, Cancer Australia, Italian Medicines Agency, and the Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.005
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.360 · 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 designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations29
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet OncologySame topicEndometrial and Cervical Cancer TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207