Table 3.
Results of studies reporting on EC.
| Author | Patients with EC information, N | EC missing, % | Method of EC reporting | Patients per category, % | Metastases for EC present, % | Metastases for EC absent, % | Reported univariable analysis | Method multivariable analysis | Reported multivariable analysis |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Present vs absent | |||||||||
| Gilbert et al. 2016 [15] | 177 | 0 | Present vs absent | Present: 78.5 |
2‐year RFR 74.3 |
2‐year RFR 89.2 |
P = 0.096 | Stratified log‐rank test (stratified by LVI) Cox regression model | P = 0.243 |
| Daugaard et al. 2014 [17] | 1226 | 0 | Present vs absent | Present: 78.1 | NR | NR | HR 3.00 (2.14–4.22) P < 0.001 | Cox prop. hazards model | HR 2.73 (1.94–3.85) P < 0.001 |
| Keskin et al. 2011 [18] | 70 | 0 | Present vs absent | Present: 71.4 | 22.0 | 5.0 | P = 0.157 | NR | NR |
| Atsü et al. 2003 [21] | 132 | 0 | Present vs absent | Present: 69.7 | 31.5 | 7.5 | P = 0.003 | Cox prop. hazards model | RR 3.7 |
| Daugaard et al. 2003 [22] | 301 | 0 | Present vs absent | Present: 73.1 | 32.3 | 18.5 | NR | NR | NR |
| Spermon et al. (2002) [40] | 50 | 0 | Present vs absent | Present: 78.0 | 38.5 | 0 | P = 0.02 | NR | NR |
| Maher and Lee 1998 [27] | 41 | 2.4 | Present vs absent | Present: 82.9 | 32.4 | 14.3 | P = 0.38 | NR | NR |
| Gels et al. 1995 [28] | 154 | 0 | Present vs absent | Present: 85.7 | 30.3 | 9.1 | P = 0.039 | Logistic regression analysis |
OR 3.49 P = 0.110 |
| Tekgül et al. 1995 [31] | 58 | 0 | Present vs absent | Present: 77.6 | 26.7 | 38.5 | NR | Cox prop. hazards model | P > 0.05 |
| Sturgeon et al. 1992 [33] | 105 | 0 | Present vs absent | Present: 27.6 | 48.3 | 30.3 | NR | NR | NR |
| Rørth et al. 1991 [34] | 77 | 7.2 | Present vs absent | Present: 87.0 | 32.8 | 10.0 | NR | NR | NR |
| Klepp et al. 1990 [42] | 278 | 0.4 | Present vs absent | Present: 75.9 | 41.7 | 25.4 | P = 0.024 | Logistic regression analysis | P = 0.11 |
| Dunphy et al. 1988 [35] | 93 | 0 | Present vs absent | Present: 87.1 | 34.6 | 0 | P = 0.05 | Cox regression analysis | P = 0.05 |
| EC percentage | |||||||||
| Li et al. 2015 [16] | 78 | 0 | >50% vs <50% | >50%: 15.4 | >50%: 25.0 | <50%: 22.7 | OR 1.133 (0.272–4.726) P = 0.864 | NR | NR |
| Kollmannsberger et al. 2010 [20] | 221 | 0.9 | ≥50% vs <50% | ≥50%: 49.3 | ≥50%: 33.0 | <50%: 20.5 | NR | NR | NR |
| Albers et al. 2003 [10] | 152 | 7.9 | ≥50% vs <50% | ≥50%: 61.2 | ≥50%: 43.0 | <50%: 28.8 | P = 0.088 | Logistic regression analysis | OR 1.8646 (0.9286–3.7440) P = 0.080 |
| Alexandre et al. 2001 [23] | 84 | 4.5 | >40% vs ≤40% | >40%: 50.0 | NR | NR | RR 3.5 (1.4–8.7) P = 0.008 | Cox prop. hazards model | EC NS |
| Albers et al. 1997 [47] | 78 | 0 | ≥50% vs <50% | ≥50%: 53.9 | ≥50%: 52.4 | <50%: 16.7 | Continuous: P = 0.001 | Maximum likelihood analysis | Continuous: P = 0.024 |
| Fung et al. 1988 [41] | 60 | 0 | ≥50% vs <50% | ≥50%: 58.3 | ≥50%: 42.9 | <50%: 20.0 | P = 0.10 | NR | NR |
| Wishnow et al. 1989 [46] | 82 | 0 | All data given | >50%: 40.2 | >50%: 47.1 | <50%: 16.7 | NR | NR | NR |
| Multiple categories | |||||||||
| Gilbert et al. 2016 [15] | 177 | 0 |
3 categories: ≤25% 26–99% 100% Continuous variable |
≤25%: 45.2 26–99%: 31.6 100%: 23.2 |
2‐year RFR ≤25%: 88.4 26–99%: 76.4 100%: 57.5 |
3 categories: ≤25%: ref 26–99%: HR 1.679 (0.736–3.831) 100%: HR 3.118 (1.391–6.988) P = 0.019 Continuous: HR 1.011 (1.002–1.019) P = 0.012 |
Stratified log‐rank test (stratified by LVI) Cox regression model | 3 categories: P = 0.006 | |
| Roeleveld et al. 2001 [24] | 90 | 0 |
4 categories: 0–25% 25–50% 50–75% 75–100% |
0–25%: 25.6 25–50%: 16.7 50–70%: 25.6 75–100%: 32.2 >50%: 57.8 |
0–25%: 21.7 25–50%: 6.6 50–70%: 47.8 75–100%: 20.7 >50%: 32.7 |
<50%: 15.8 | 4 categories: P = 0.032 | Logistic regression analysis | 4 categories: P = 0.220 |
| Nicolai and Pizzocaro 1995 [29] | 81 | 4.7 |
3 categories: <50% 50–99% 100% |
<50%: 50.6 50–99%: 37.0 100%: 12.3 >50%: 49.4 |
<50%: 14.6 50–99%: 36.7 100%: 60 >50%: 42.5 |
<50%: 14.6 | 3 categories: P = 0.008 | NR | NR |
| Albers et al. 1995 [45] | 90 | 0 |
4 categories: 0–25% 26–50% 51–75% 76–100% |
0–25%: 43.3 26–50%: 17.8 51–75%: 14.4 76–100%: 24.4 >50%: 38.9 |
0–25%: 15.4 26–50%: 25.0 51–75%: 30.8 76–100%: 50.0 >50%: 42.9 |
≤50%: 18.2 | 4 categories: NS | NR | NR |
| Other categories | |||||||||
| Sturgeon et al. 2011 [19] | 371 | 0 | Pure EC | Pure: 15.1 | NR | NR | NR | Cox prop. hazards model | HR 1.74 (1.10–2.74) P = 0.02 |
| Sweeney et al. 2000 [43] | 292 | 0 | Predominant vs not predominant | Predominant: 42.8 | 46.4 | 18.6 | P < 0.001 | NR | NR |
| Sogani et al. 1998 [26] | 105 | 0 | Predominance | 24.8 | 46 | 19 | P = 0.007 | Cox prop. hazards model |
OR 2.6 P = 0.016 |
| Ondrus and Hornak 1994 [30] | 80 | 0 | Major EC vs minor EC |
Major EC: 51.3 Minor EC: 30.0 |
58.5 | 20.8 | P = 0.096 | NR | NR |
EC, embryonal carcinoma; NR, not reported; NS, not significant; RFR, relapse‐free rate.