Predictive models for lymph node metastasis in endometrial cancer: A systematic review and bibliometric analysis.

He Li, Junzhu Wang, Guo Zhang, Liwei Li, Zhihui Shen, Zhuoyu Zhai, Zhiqi Wang, Jianliu Wang
{"title":"Predictive models for lymph node metastasis in endometrial cancer: A systematic review and bibliometric analysis.","authors":"He Li, Junzhu Wang, Guo Zhang, Liwei Li, Zhihui Shen, Zhuoyu Zhai, Zhiqi Wang, Jianliu Wang","doi":"10.1177/17455057241248398","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Lymph node metastasis is associated with a poorer prognosis in endometrial cancer.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective was to synthesize and critically appraise existing predictive models for lymph node metastasis risk stratification in endometrial cancer.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>This study is a systematic review.</p><p><strong>Data sources and methods: </strong>We searched the Web of Science for articles reporting models predicting lymph node metastasis in endometrial cancer, with a systematic review and bibliometric analysis conducted based upon which. Risk of bias was assessed by the Prediction model Risk Of BiAS assessment Tool (PROBAST).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 64 articles were included in the systematic review, published between 2010 and 2023. The most common articles were \"development only.\" Traditional clinicopathological parameters remained the mainstream in models, for example, serum tumor marker, myometrial invasion and tumor grade. Also, models based upon gene-signatures, radiomics and digital histopathological images exhibited an acceptable self-reported performance. The most frequently validated models were the Mayo criteria, which reached a negative predictive value of 97.1%-98.2%. Substantial variability and inconsistency were observed through PROBAST, indicating significant between-study heterogeneity. A further bibliometric analysis revealed a relatively weak link between authors and organizations on models predicting lymph node metastasis in endometrial cancer.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>A number of predictive models for lymph node metastasis in endometrial cancer have been developed. Although some exhibited promising performance as they demonstrated adequate to good discrimination, few models can currently be recommended for clinical practice due to lack of independent validation, high risk of bias and low consistency in measured predictors. Collaborations between authors, organizations and countries were weak. Model updating, external validation and collaborative research are urgently needed.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>None.</p>","PeriodicalId":75327,"journal":{"name":"Women's health (London, England)","volume":"20 ","pages":"17455057241248398"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11085025/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Women's health (London, England)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17455057241248398","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Lymph node metastasis is associated with a poorer prognosis in endometrial cancer.

Objective: The objective was to synthesize and critically appraise existing predictive models for lymph node metastasis risk stratification in endometrial cancer.

Design: This study is a systematic review.

Data sources and methods: We searched the Web of Science for articles reporting models predicting lymph node metastasis in endometrial cancer, with a systematic review and bibliometric analysis conducted based upon which. Risk of bias was assessed by the Prediction model Risk Of BiAS assessment Tool (PROBAST).

Results: A total of 64 articles were included in the systematic review, published between 2010 and 2023. The most common articles were "development only." Traditional clinicopathological parameters remained the mainstream in models, for example, serum tumor marker, myometrial invasion and tumor grade. Also, models based upon gene-signatures, radiomics and digital histopathological images exhibited an acceptable self-reported performance. The most frequently validated models were the Mayo criteria, which reached a negative predictive value of 97.1%-98.2%. Substantial variability and inconsistency were observed through PROBAST, indicating significant between-study heterogeneity. A further bibliometric analysis revealed a relatively weak link between authors and organizations on models predicting lymph node metastasis in endometrial cancer.

Conclusion: A number of predictive models for lymph node metastasis in endometrial cancer have been developed. Although some exhibited promising performance as they demonstrated adequate to good discrimination, few models can currently be recommended for clinical practice due to lack of independent validation, high risk of bias and low consistency in measured predictors. Collaborations between authors, organizations and countries were weak. Model updating, external validation and collaborative research are urgently needed.

Registration: None.

子宫内膜癌淋巴结转移的预测模型:系统综述和文献计量分析。
背景:淋巴结转移与子宫内膜癌较差的预后有关:淋巴结转移与子宫内膜癌较差的预后有关:目的:综合并严格评估现有的子宫内膜癌淋巴结转移风险分层预测模型:本研究是一项系统性综述:我们在Web of Science上搜索了报道子宫内膜癌淋巴结转移预测模型的文章,并在此基础上进行了系统综述和文献计量分析。预测模型偏倚风险评估工具(PROBAST)对偏倚风险进行了评估:共有 64 篇文章被纳入系统综述,这些文章发表于 2010 年至 2023 年之间。最常见的文章是 "仅研究发展"。传统的临床病理参数仍是模型的主流,如血清肿瘤标志物、子宫肌层侵犯和肿瘤分级。此外,基于基因特征、放射组学和数字组织病理学图像的模型也表现出了可接受的自我报告性能。最常用的验证模型是梅奥标准,其阴性预测值达到 97.1%-98.2%。通过 PROBAST 观察到了巨大的变异性和不一致性,表明研究之间存在显著的异质性。进一步的文献计量分析表明,在预测子宫内膜癌淋巴结转移的模型方面,作者和组织之间的联系相对较弱:结论:目前已开发出多种子宫内膜癌淋巴结转移预测模型。结论:目前已开发出许多子宫内膜癌淋巴结转移预测模型,虽然其中一些模型表现出良好的辨别能力,但由于缺乏独立验证、偏倚风险高、测量预测因子一致性低等原因,目前很少有模型可推荐用于临床实践。作者、组织和国家之间的合作薄弱。亟需对模型进行更新、外部验证和合作研究:注册:无。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信