↓ Skip to main content

Interventions for weight reduction in obesity to improve survival in women with endometrial cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2018
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 (90th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
29 tweeters
facebook
4 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 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
Interventions for weight reduction in obesity to improve survival in women with endometrial cancer
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd012513.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sarah Kitson, Neil Ryan, Michelle L MacKintosh, Richard Edmondson, James MN Duffy, Emma J Crosbie

Abstract

Diagnoses of endometrial cancer are increasing secondary to the rising prevalence of obesity. Obesity plays an important role in promoting the development of endometrial cancer, by inducing a state of unopposed oestrogen excess, insulin resistance and inflammation. It also affects treatment, increasing the risk of surgical complications and the complexity of radiotherapy planning, and may additionally impact on subsequent survival. Weight-loss interventions have been associated with improvements in breast and colorectal cancer-specific survival as well as a reduction in the risk of cardiovascular disease, a frequent cause of death in endometrial cancer survivors. To determine the impact of weight-loss interventions, in addition to standard management of endometrial cancer, on overall survival and the frequency of adverse events.Secondary objectives include an assessment of weight-loss interventions on endometrial cancer-specific survival, weight loss achieved, cardiovascular event frequency and quality of life both overall and stratified according to patient body mass index (BMI), where possible. This review searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase and reference lists of articles, trial registries, and international gynaecological oncology conference abstracts from inception to January 2018. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions to facilitate weight loss in overweight or obese women undergoing treatment for, or previously treated for, endometrial cancer were selected. Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed trial quality, and extracted data with disagreements resolved by a third review author. Study authors were contacted to obtain missing data, including details of any adverse events. We included three RCTs in the review, randomising a total of 161 overweight and obese women with endometrial cancer. All studies compared combined behavioural and lifestyle interventions to facilitate weight loss through dietary modification and increased physical activity. The included RCTs were of low or very low quality, due to high risk of bias by failing to blind participants, personnel and outcome assessors, and significant loss to follow-up (attrition rate up to 29%).Combined behaviour and lifestyle interventions were not associated with improved overall survival (risk ratio (RR mortality), 0.23 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 4.55, P = 0.34, one RCT, 37 participants; very low-certainty evidence) compared with usual care at 24 months. There was no evidence that such interventions were associated with improvements in cancer-specific survival or cardiovascular event frequency as no cancer-related deaths, myocardial infarctions or strokes were reported in the included studies. None of the included RCTs reported data for the outcome of recurrence-free survival. Combined behaviour and lifestyle interventions were not associated with significant weight loss at either six months (mean difference (MD) -1.88 kg, 95% CI -5.98 to 2.21 kg, P = 0.37, three RCTs, 131 participants, I2= 0%; low-certainty evidenc e)or 12 months (MD -8.98 kg, 95% CI -19.88 to 1.92 kg, P = 0.11, two RCTs, 91 participants, I2= 0%; very low-certainty evidence) when compared with usual care. Combined behaviour and lifestyle interventions were not associated with increased quality of life, when measured using either the SF-12 Physical Health questionnaire or FACT-G at six months (FACT-G MD 2.51, 95% CI -5.61 to 10.64, P = 0.54, two RCTs, 95 participants, I2= 83%; very low-certainty evidence), or by FACT-G alone at 12 months (MD 2.77, 95% CI -0.65 to 6.20, P = 0.11, two RCTs, 89 participants, I2= 0%; very low-certainty evidence) when compared with usual care. No serious adverse events, for example hospitalisation or deaths, were reported in included trials. Lifestyle and behavioural interventions were associated with a higher risk of musculoskeletal symptoms (RR 19.03, 95% CI 1.17, 310.52, P = 0.04, two RCTs, 91 participants; low-certainty evidence). There is currently insufficient high-quality evidence to determine the effect of combined lifestyle and behavioural interventions on survival, quality of life, or significant weight loss in women with a history of endometrial cancer compared to those receiving usual care. The limited evidence suggests that there is little or no serious or life-threatening adverse effects due to these interventions, although musculoskeletal problems were increased, presumably due to increased activity levels. Our conclusion is based on low- and very low-quality evidence from a small number of trials and very few patients. We therefore have very little confidence in the evidence: the true effect of weight-loss interventions in obese women with endometrial cancer is currently not known.Further methodologically-rigorous, adequately-powered RCTs are required with follow-up of 5 to 10 years duration. These should focus on the effects of varying dietary modification regimens, pharmacological treatments associated with weight loss and bariatric surgery on survival, quality of life, weight loss and adverse events.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 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 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 58 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 15 25%
Student > Master 12 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 19%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 5%
Other 12 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 34%
Unspecified 18 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 10%
Psychology 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 10 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 01 November 2018.
All research outputs
#624,031
of 12,231,364 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,700
of 8,286 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,756
of 328,395 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#39
of 83 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,231,364 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,286 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 328,395 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 83 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 53% of its contemporaries.