ArticleJournal of the Turkish German Gynecological Association2016
Could S6K1 immunopositivity be used to distinguish early and advanced stages of endometrioid endometrial adenocarcinoma?
Article in Journal of the Turkish German Gynecological Association, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess whether the immunopositivity of S6K1, a crucial effector of the mTOR signaling pathway, varies between early-stage low-grade and advanced-stage high-grade endometrial endometrioid adenocarcinoma (EEA) as well as to discuss its prognostic significance. MATERIAL AND
methodsA total of 22 normal endometrial tissue samples (Control group) and 41 EEA specimens (Study group) were enrolled in the study, and all the samples underwent immunohistochemical staining for S6 kinase alpha (S6K1). The study group was further evaluated in two subgroups; stage 1A, grade 1 (Group 1) and stage ≥1A, grade 2 or 3 (Group 2). Group 2 patients were considered as a poor prognosis for EEA. The samples were examined by two independent pathologists. Statistical analyses were performed using the Student's t-test for continuous variables, the Chi-square test for categorical variables, and one-way analysis of variance for the comparison of multiple variables.
resultsThe immunopositivity rate for all the included EEA patients was 56.1%, whereas none of the 22 normal endometrial tissue samples revealed immunoreactivity for S6K1. The immunopositivity rates were significantly different between Groups 1 and 2 [38.1% (8/21) and 75.0% (15/20), respectively, p=0.039]. When S6K1 positivity was used as a criterion of poor prognosis in EEA, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were calculated to be 62%, 75%, 72%, and 65%, respectively (OR: 4.9 and 95% CI: 1.3-18.7).
conclusionS6K1 was positive in the majority of EEAs and malignancies at an advanced stage. Higher grade disease had a significantly higher rate of S6K1 positivity. S6K1 immunopositivity appears to be a promising method to predict poor prognosis in EEA.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.