2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2016.03.079
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluation of models to predict lymph node metastasis in endometrial cancer: A multicentre study

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
22
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 33 publications
(24 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
2
22
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Several risk models for prediction of LNM have been proposed [7][8][9][10][11][12], and in a study from 2015, Koskas et al [13] evaluated ten models in an independent patient cohort and found that the best model (based on CA125 and MRI findings [12]) yielded an AUC of 0.76 and a false negative rate of 4%. The present study shows that a risk model based on MTV cutoff value of 27 ml alone will yield a higher AUC of 0.80 for prediction of LNM, however with a higher false negative rate of 19%.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Several risk models for prediction of LNM have been proposed [7][8][9][10][11][12], and in a study from 2015, Koskas et al [13] evaluated ten models in an independent patient cohort and found that the best model (based on CA125 and MRI findings [12]) yielded an AUC of 0.76 and a false negative rate of 4%. The present study shows that a risk model based on MTV cutoff value of 27 ml alone will yield a higher AUC of 0.80 for prediction of LNM, however with a higher false negative rate of 19%.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Some models are inherently postoperative since they are based on tumor biomarker profiles derived from hysterectomy specimens [7][8][9], whereas proposed preoperative models combine preoperative imaging characteristics and biopsy/curettage and serum markers, e.g., cancer antigen (CA 125) [10][11][12]. When applied in independent patient cohorts, these models have been shown to have variable feasibilities [13][14][15], and at present, the best risk stratification model in endometrial cancer is not yet defined, and no uniform risk model is routinely used across centers. Furthermore, sentinel lymph node dissection (SLND) procedures have been increasingly advocated as a feasible alternative to full lymphadenectomy in endometrial cancer patients.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Published preoperative risk models in endometrial cancer predict the risk of lymph node metastases 25,[145][146][147][148][149] (Table 5), postoperative high risk 53,61,123 and advanced stage 150 , with 25,53,61,[145][146][147][148][149] or without 123,150 the use of imaging. Some preoperative risk models for lymph node metastases [145][146][147] have been subject to external validation, limited by selective cohorts and missing data, due to the retrospective nature of the studies 151,152 . Comparison of model performance is difficult, as long as the models are not validated on the same identical validation cohort, representative to the target population for the model.…”
Section: Risk Assessment In Endometrial Cancermentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Most preoperative risk classification systems and risk prediction models aim at identifying a low-risk group, where lymphadenectomy can be safely omitted 152 . The definition of what "low risk" is varies with models.…”
Section: The Challenge Of Correct Prediction Of Lymph Node Metastasesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although hysterectomy is curative in most women with ECs, 2–15% of early stage and over 50% of advance stage ECs will eventually recur with poor patient outcome [ 3 , 4 ]. The currently-available clinicopathological classification of EC patients into low, intermediate and high risk sub-groups has been criticized to be of limited specificity in stratifying patients for postsurgical management [ 5 ]. The recently proposed molecular classification of EC is projected to improve this, particularly after integrating the suggested 4 molecular groups with the existing clinicopathological subgroupings [ 6 ]; however, reliable bio-markers to predict response to therapy or recurrence during follow-up, are still lacking.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%