ArticleJournal of gynecologic oncology2026
Comparative outcomes of adjuvant chemotherapy alone versus combined chemotherapy and radiation therapy in patients with stage III endometrial cancer: a propensity score matching study.
Article in Journal of gynecologic oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- MUC16 promotes endometrial cancer progression and modulates sensitivity to lapatinib through the ESR1/PI3K/AKT axis.Translational oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveWe compared the outcomes of adjuvant chemotherapy (CT) alone vs. adjuvant CT combined with radiation therapy (CRT) in patients with stage III endometrial cancer. All patients received 6 cycles of CT before radiation therapy (RT) were initiated. We also explored specific patient subgroups that might benefit from the addition of RT.
methodsBetween 2007 and 2019, we analyzed 118 patients after propensity score matching, with 59 patients in each group (CT alone vs. CRT). The primary endpoint was pelvic recurrence; the secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS). We conducted exploratory subgroup analyses stratifying patients by stage, histological grade, lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI), and cervical involvement to assess whether these factors influenced outcomes between the 2 treatments.
resultsPatients receiving CRT had significantly lower 5-year pelvic recurrence rates than those receiving CT alone (1.8% vs. 17.9%; hazard ratio [HR]=0.09 [0.01-0.71]; p=0.004). There was no significant difference in 5-year PFS between the 2 groups overall (67.6% vs. 72.3%; HR=0.75 [0.39-1.46]; p=0.393). However, in high-risk
conclusionCompared with CT alone, CRT improved pelvic control overall and significantly improved pelvic control and PFS in high-risk
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.