Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29234950›Full record

ReviewVirchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology2018

The evolution of endometrial carcinoma classification through application of immunohistochemistry and molecular diagnostics: past, present and future.

Emily A Goebel, August Vidal, Xavier Matias-Guiu, C Blake Gilks

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 57 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Tight junction disruptionWorld journal of clinical oncology · 2025
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. In focus in HCB.Histochemistry and cell biology · 2020
    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 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Emily A GoebelDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Western University and London Health Sciences Centre, London, Ontario, Canada.
August VidalHospital Universitari de Bellvitge, IDIBELL, CIBERONC, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain.
Xavier Matias-GuiuDepartment of Pathology, Hospital Universitari Arnau de Vilanova de Lleida and Hospital Universitari de Bellvitge, IRBLleida, IDIBELL, CIBERONC, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain.
C Blake GilksDepartment of Anatomic Pathology, Vancouver General Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Blake.Gilks@vch.ca.
Bellvitge University Hospital · ESInstitut d'Investigació Biomédica de Bellvitge · ESLondon Health Sciences Centre · CAVancouver General Hospital · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Uterine cancer was first subclassified based on anatomic site, separating those tumours arising from the endometrium from cervical cancers. There was then further subclassification of endometrial cancers based on cell type, and this correlated with the Type I and Type II categories identified through the epidemiological studies of Bokhman, with endometrioid carcinoma corresponding (approximately) to Type I and serous carcinoma to Type II. These histotypes are not clearly separable in practice, however, with considerable interobserver variability in histotype diagnosis, especially for high-grade tumours. There followed studies of immunomarkers and then mutational studies of single genes, in attempts to improve subclassification. While these have revealed significant differences in protein expression and mutation profiles between endometrioid and serous carcinomas, there is also considerable overlap, so that there remain challenges in subclassification of endometrial carcinoma. Gene panel testing, using next-generation sequencing, was applied to endometrial cancers and highlighted that there are tumours that show genetic alterations intermediate between classic Type I/endometrioid and Type II/serous carcinomas. The Cancer Genome Atlas studies of endometrioid and serous carcinoma offered revolutionary insight into the subclassification of endometrial carcinoma, i.e. that there are four distinct categories of endometrial carcinoma, rather than two, based on genomic architecture. In this review, we provide an overview of immunohistochemical and molecular markers in endometrial carcinoma and comment on the important future directions in endometrial carcinoma subclassification arising from The Cancer Genome Atlas results.

Indexed as

Endometrial NeoplasmsImmunohistochemistryPathology, MolecularUterine NeoplasmsCarcinoma, EndometrioidEndometriumFemaleHumansClassification of endometrial carcinomaEndometrial carcinomaImmunohistochemistryMolecular diagnostics

Identifiers

PMID29234950
OpenAlexW2773358534

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.