Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27999680›Full record

ReviewGynecologic oncology research and practice2016

New classification of endometrial cancers: the development and potential applications of genomic-based classification in research and clinical care.

A Talhouk, J N McAlpine

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Gynecologic oncology research and practice, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 98 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
98citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
17.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

98 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 203 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Enrichment for theJournal of gynecologic oncology · 2024
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

38 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

A TalhoukDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of British Columbia and BC Cancer Agency, Vancouver, BC Canada.
J N McAlpineDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, University of British Columbia, 2775 Laurel St. 6th Floor, Vancouver, BC Canada V5Z 1M9.
University of British Columbia · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Endometrial carcinoma (EC) is the fourth most common cancer in women in the developed world. Classification of ECs by histomorphologic criteria has limited reproducibility and better tools are needed to distinguish these tumors and enable a subtype-specific approach to research and clinical care. Based on the Cancer Genome Atlas, two research teams have developed pragmatic molecular classifiers that identify four prognostically distinct molecular subgroups. These methods can be applied to diagnostic specimens (e.g., endometrial biopsy) with the potential to completely change the current risk stratification systems and enable earlier informed decision making. The evolution of genomic classification in ECs is shared herein, as well as potential applications and discussion of the essential research still needed in order to optimally integrate molecular classification in to current standard of care.

Indexed as

Endometrial carcinomaHistotypeMismatch repair deficienciesMolecular classificationp53POLE mutationsPrognosisRisk stratificationThe Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA)

Identifiers

PMID27999680
PMCPMC5154099
OpenAlexW2560306085

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.