Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28452373›Full record

ReviewModern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc2017

Endometrial cancer gene panels: clinical diagnostic vs research germline DNA testing.

Amanda B Spurdle, Michael A Bowman, Jannah Shamsani, Judy Kirk

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 60 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. SEOM-GEICO clinical guidelines on endometrial cancer (2025).Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2025
    Guideline
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Frontiers in oncology · 2025
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Amanda B SpurdleMolecular Cancer Epidemiology Laboratory, Genetics and Computational Biology Division, Genetics and Computational Biology Department, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Herston, QLD, Australia.
Michael A BowmanMolecular Cancer Epidemiology Laboratory, Genetics and Computational Biology Division, Genetics and Computational Biology Department, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Herston, QLD, Australia.
Jannah ShamsaniMolecular Cancer Epidemiology Laboratory, Genetics and Computational Biology Division, Genetics and Computational Biology Department, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Herston, QLD, Australia.
Judy KirkFamilial Cancer Service, Crown Princess Mary Cancer Centre, Westmead Hospital, Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Centre for Cancer Research, The Westmead Institute for Medical Research, Westmead, NSW, Australia.
QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute · AUThe University of Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Endometrial cancer is the most common gynecological cancer, but is nevertheless uncommon enough to have value as a signature cancer for some hereditary cancer syndromes. Commercial multigene testing panels include up to 13 different genes annotated for germline DNA testing of patients with endometrial cancer. Many other genes have been reported as relevant to familial endometrial cancer from directed genome-wide sequencing studies or multigene panel testing, or research. This review assesses the evidence supporting association with endometrial cancer risk for 32 genes implicated in hereditary endometrial cancer, and presents a summary of rare germline variants in these 32 genes detected by analysis of quasi-population-based endometrial cancer patients from The Cancer Genome Atlas project. This comprehensive investigation has led to the conclusion that convincing evidence currently exists to support clinical testing of only six of these genes for diagnosis of hereditary endometrial cancer. Testing of endometrial cancer patients for the remaining genes should be considered in the context of research studies, as a means to better establish the level of endometrial cancer risk, if any, associated with genetic variants that are deleterious to gene or protein function. It is acknowledged that clinical testing of endometrial cancer patients for several genes included on commercial panels may provide actionable findings in relation to risk of other cancers, but these should be considered secondary or incidental findings and not conclusive evidence for diagnosis of inherited endometrial cancer. In summary, this review and analysis provides a comprehensive report of current evidence to guide the selection of genes for clinical and research gene testing of germline DNA from endometrial cancer patients.

Indexed as

Endometrial NeoplasmsFemaleGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseGenetic TestingHumans

Identifiers

PMID28452373
OpenAlexW2607633680

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.