ArticleFrontiers in oncology2025
The role of complementary lymphadenectomy in patients with incidental endometrial cancer.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Up to 3.0% of women are diagnosed with endometrial cancer after hysterectomy for apparently benign conditions. There is controversy about the benefit of complementary lymphadenectomy in incidental endometrial cancer after hysterectomy. Objective: To evaluate the role complementary lymphadenectomy during a second surgery in the prognosis of patients with endometrial carcinoma. Study design: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients who were diagnosed with endometrial carcinoma from 2005 to 2019. Two groups were evaluated: patients who underwent a second surgery involving pelvic and/or para-aortic lymphadenectomy and patients who did not undergo surgical lymph node evaluation. Logistic regression was used to identify the factors associated with whether or not a complementary lymphadenectomy was performed. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to generate survival curves, and the log-rank test was used for comparisons. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed with the Cox test. Results: Two hundred and sixty patients were included. Among them, 120 (46.15%) underwent complementary lymphadenectomy, and 140 (53.83%) did not. The factors associated with performing complementary lymphadenectomy in a second surgical procedure were higher grade, nonendometrioid histology and deep myometrial involvement. The factors associated with adjuvant treatment were high-grade histology, deep myometrial involvement, cervical involvement and extensive lymphovascular permeation. Complementary lymphadenectomy was not associated with adjuvant treatment (OR 0.85 95% CI 0.35-2.02), overall survival (Hazard Ratio (HR) 0.40 95% CI 1.16-1.00) or disease-free survival (HR 0.77 95% CI 0.38-1.59). Conclusions: No clear therapeutic or prognostic role was identified for complementary lymphadenectomy during a second surgery in patients with endometrial cancer. Although adjuvant therapy was more common in patients who underwent complementary lymphadenectomy, it was not independently associated with receiving adjuvant therapy. Individualizing treatment decisions remains important when considering a second surgical procedure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.