↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Lymphadenectomy for the management of endometrial cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
25 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
102 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
211 Mendeley
Title
Lymphadenectomy for the management of endometrial cancer
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007585.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jonathan A Frost, Katie E Webster, Andrew Bryant, Jo Morrison

Abstract

This is an update of a previous Cochrane review published in Issue 1, 2010 and updated in Issue 9, 2015. The role of lymphadenectomy in surgical management of endometrial cancer remains controversial. Lymph node metastases can be found in approximately 10% of women who before surgery are thought to have cancer confined to the womb. Removal of all pelvic and para-aortic lymph nodes (lymphadenectomy) at initial surgery has been widely advocated, and pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy remains part of the FIGO (International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics) staging system for endometrial cancer. This recommendation is based on data from studies that suggested improvement in survival following pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy. However, these studies were not randomised controlled trials (RCTs), and treatment of pelvic lymph nodes may not confer a direct therapeutic benefit, other than allocating women to poorer prognosis groups. Furthermore, the Cochrane review and meta-analysis of RCTs of routine adjuvant radiotherapy to treat possible lymph node metastases in women with early-stage endometrial cancer found no survival advantage. Surgical removal of pelvic and para-aortic lymph nodes has serious potential short-term and long-term sequelae. Therefore, it is important to investigate the clinical value of this treatment. To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of lymphadenectomy for the management of endometrial cancer. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and Embase to June 2009 for the original review, updated the search to June 2015 for the last updated version and further extended the search to March 2017 for this version of the review. We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings, and reference lists of included studies, and we contacted experts in the field. RCTs and quasi-RCTs that compared lymphadenectomy versus no lymphadenectomy in adult women diagnosed with endometrial cancer. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Hazard ratios (HRs) for overall and progression-free survival and risk ratios (RRs) comparing adverse events in women who received lymphadenectomy versus those with no lymphadenectomy were pooled in random-effects meta-analyses. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. 978 unique references were identified via the search strategy. All but 50 were excluded by title and abstract screening. Three RCTs met the inclusion criteria; for one small RCT, data were insufficient for inclusion in the meta-analysis. The two RCTs included in the analysis randomly assigned 1945 women, reported HRs for survival adjusted for prognostic factors and based on 1851 women and had an overall low risk of bias, as they satisfied four of the assessment criteria. The third study had an overall unclear risk of bias, as information provided was not adequate concerning random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, or completeness of outcome reporting.Results of the meta-analysis remained unchanged from the previous versions of this review and indicated no differences in overall and recurrence-free survival between women who underwent lymphadenectomy and those who did not undergo lymphadenectomy (pooled hazard ratio (HR) 1.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.43; HR 1.23, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.58 for overall and recurrence-free survival, respectively) (1851 participants, two studies; moderate-quality evidence).We found no difference in risk of direct surgical morbidity between women who underwent lymphadenectomy and those who did not undergo lymphadenectomy. However, women who underwent lymphadenectomy had a significantly higher risk of surgery-related systemic morbidity and lymphoedema/lymphocyst formation than those who did not undergo lymphadenectomy (RR 3.72, 95% CI 1.04 to 13.27; RR 8.39, 95% CI 4.06 to 17.33 for risk of surgery-related systemic morbidity and lymphoedema/lymphocyst formation, respectively) (1922 participants, two studies; high-quality evidence). This review found no evidence that lymphadenectomy decreases risk of death or disease recurrence compared with no lymphadenectomy in women with presumed stage I disease. Evidence on serious adverse events suggests that women who undergo lymphadenectomy are more likely to experience surgery-related systemic morbidity or lymphoedema/lymphocyst formation. Currently, no RCT evidence shows the impact of lymphadenectomy in women with higher-stage disease and in those at high risk of disease recurrence.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 25 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 211 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 210 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 31 15%
Student > Bachelor 26 12%
Other 20 9%
Researcher 18 9%
Student > Postgraduate 17 8%
Other 46 22%
Unknown 53 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 96 45%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 4%
Social Sciences 5 2%
Psychology 4 2%
Other 16 8%
Unknown 63 30%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 November 2020.
All research outputs
#1,401,837
of 19,338,160 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,436
of 11,955 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,461
of 292,151 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#105
of 262 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,338,160 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,955 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 292,151 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 262 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.