Cited by 49Endometriosis Research and TreatmentEctopic Pregnancy Diagnosis and ManagementEndometrial and Cervical Cancer Treatments

Two unsuccessful clinical trials on endometriosis and a few lessons learned

Guo, Sun-Wei, Olive, David L.·2007·Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation

Abstract

In 1999, a phase II clinical trial on the use of fulvestrant to treat endometriosis was launched; yet after 7 years there is still no report on its outcome. In 2005, another trial on the use of raloxifene to treat endometriosis was terminated early due to unfavorable outcome. The two apparently unsuccessful clinical trials on endometriosis have taught us a few important lessons. First, we need to understand endometriosis through more basic research. We have also been reminded that human endometriosis trials differ from animal studies; anatomy and physiology are often divergent, and outcome measures are certainly different. Ectopic endometrium can differ significantly from eutopic tissue, and this issue needs to be more thoroughly explored. We believe human cell lines will prove to be an inexpensive and valuable tool for future preliminary evaluation of medical therapies as well as discerning pathophysiologic processes of the disease. Based on our current understanding of endometriosis, some concrete benchmarks can be established for testing or screening potential compounds in vitro. Finally, estrogen receptor modulators are often tissue-, cell-, and context-specific in their actions; they should not be simplistically grouped together nor should extrapolations from one compound to another be undertaken in a cavalier manner.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1159/000098413

Cites

135 of 135 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 136 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Guo, S.-W., & Olive, D. L.
Affiliations
  • Medical College of Wisconsin (US)
  • University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
Venue
Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation
Publisher
S. Karger AG
Published
2007
Volume
64
Issue
1
Pages
24-35
ISSN
  • 0378-7346 (ISSN-L)
  • 1423-002X
OpenAlex
W1970690912
Cited by
49
References
136
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 2
FWCI
1.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Endometriosis Research and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ectopic Pregnancy Diagnosis and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Endometrial and Cervical Cancer Treatments
Keywords
endometriosis, fulvestrant, raloxifene, estrogen receptor modulators, clinical trial failure, ectopic endometrium, translational research
MeSH terms
Fulvestrant, Adult, Animals, Disease Models, Animal, Dose-Response Relationship, Drug, Drug Administration Schedule, Endometriosis, Estradiol, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Middle Aged, Severity of Illness Index, Species Specificity, Treatment Failure, Risk Assessment, Needs Assessment, Selective Estrogen Receptor Modulators, Raloxifene Hydrochloride

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review