Women's Health (May 2024)

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

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/17455057241248398
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 20

Abstract

Read online

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.