Following this puts new work involving it at the top of your briefing, with a note saying why it is there. Links are taken from the source record, never inferred.
International Journal of Clinical Oncology and Cancer Research
A single-centre retrospective descriptive study over 15 years with no comparator, control group, or analytical design; reports incidence and outcomes but cannot test causation or establish clinical efficacy.
A narrative review synthesizing current literature on surgical approaches in gynecological malignancies, offering expert consensus on the continuing role of open surgery alongside modern alternatives rather than reporting new empirical data.
This is a narrative review synthesizing existing literature on AI applications in endometrial cancer; it does not report original empirical results, primary endpoints, or comparative efficacy data from controlled studies, and explicitly acknowledges that prospective clinical evidence remains insufficient.
A well-designed retrospective proteogenomic study with independent validation cohort showing that proteomic profiling improves risk stratification beyond clinical-genomic classifiers in high-risk endometrial cancer, but limited by single-center design, archival tissue, and lack of prospective validation or intervention outcome data.
A large retrospective cohort confirming the low but clinically important prevalence of endometrial carcinoma in endometrial polyps (0.62%) and identifying established demographic and metabolic risk factors, with clear statistical analysis but observational design and no intervention.
Single-arm phase II trial showing encouraging ORR and PFS in a small cohort, but lacks a control arm and mature OS data; results warrant phase III confirmation but do not yet change practice.
A real-world retrospective study of adequate size showing encouraging efficacy (ORR 55.6%, 12-month OS 92.1%) with manageable toxicity in R/M cervical cancer, but lacking a control arm and requiring prospective validation.
A well-designed retrospective validation study of a diagnostic nomogram with good discrimination (AUC 0.865 in validation), but modest incremental gain over clinical variables alone and modest sample size requiring external confirmation.