↓ Skip to main content

How to manage synchronous endometrial and ovarian cancer patients?

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cancer, May 2021
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
How to manage synchronous endometrial and ovarian cancer patients?
Published in
BMC Cancer, May 2021
DOI 10.1186/s12885-021-08220-w
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wonkyo Shin, Sang-Yoon Park, Sokbom Kang, Myong Cheol Lim, Sang-Soo Seo

Abstract

We aimed to evaluate the prognosis in patients with synchronous endometrial and ovarian cancer (SEOC) by comparing the differences between double primary cancer (DPC) and metastatic cancer (MC). The medical records of 47 patients diagnosed synchronously with endometrial and ovarian cancer between January 2006 and December 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. Twenty-eight and 19 patients were diagnosed with DPC and MC, respectively. Demographics, recurrence-free survival (RFS), and 5-year overall survival (OS) were compared. The clinical factors affecting survival were evaluated using univariate and multivariate analyses. The demographics were not different between both groups. Endometrioid histology and the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics grade were higher in the MC group than in the DPC group (42.1% vs. 10.7%; P = 0.018, P = 0.002, respectively). The ratio of post-operative adjuvant therapy was not different in both groups. Recurrence occurred in five patients with DPC and seven with MC. The difference in RFS was not significantly different (P = 0.131) but the OS was different between both groups (P = 0.020). Histology and para-aortic lymph node metastasis were associated wtih RFS in univariate analysis, but no difference was found in multivariate analysis. Although DPC patients had longer OS, multivariate analysis did not identify any influential factors. Focus should be placed on defining the appropriate adjuvant treatment for high-risk patients, which will improve prognosis, rather than on discriminating between DPC and MC.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 3 14%
Researcher 3 14%
Unspecified 2 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 5%
Student > Master 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 11 50%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 23%
Unspecified 2 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 12 55%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 03 May 2021.
All research outputs
#20,707,815
of 23,308,124 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#6,597
of 8,441 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#365,809
of 438,160 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#246
of 308 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,308,124 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,441 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 438,160 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 308 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.