Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29955143›Full record

ArticleModern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc2018

Refinement of high-risk endometrial cancer classification using DNA damage response biomarkers: a TransPORTEC initiative.

Aurélie Auguste, Catherine Genestie, Marco De Bruyn, Julien Adam, Audrey Le Formal, Françoise Drusch, Patricia Pautier, Emma J Crosbie, Helen MacKay, Henry C Kitchener and 9 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.7field-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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 60 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  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

19 authors at 8 institutions in 5 countries.

Aurélie AugusteGustave Roussy, Gynecology Unit, U981 INSERM, Villejuif, France. aurelie.auguste@gustaverousy.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5115-0218
Catherine GenestieGustave Roussy, Gynecology Unit, U981 INSERM, Villejuif, France.
Marco De BruynDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynecology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Julien AdamGustave Roussy, Department of Medical Oncology, Pathology department, Villejuif, France.
Audrey Le FormalGustave Roussy, Gynecology Unit, U981 INSERM, Villejuif, France.
Françoise DruschGustave Roussy, Histo-Cyto Pathology platform, Villejuif, France.
Patricia PautierDepartment of Medical Oncology, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France.
Emma J CrosbieInstitute of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, St Mary's Hospital, Manchester, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0284-8630
Helen MacKayDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Princess Margaret Hospital/University Health Network, University of Toronto, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Toronto, Canada.
Henry C KitchenerInstitute of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, St Mary's Hospital, Manchester, UK.
Melanie PowellDepartment of Clinical Oncology, arts Health NHS Trust, London, UK.
Pamela M PollockInstitute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.
Linda MileshkinPeter Mac Callum Cancer Centre, Division of Cancer Medicine, East Melbourne, Australia.
Richard J EdmondsonPeter Mac Callum Cancer Centre, Division of Cancer Medicine, East Melbourne, Australia.
Remi NoutDepartment of Clinical Oncology, eiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Hans W NijmanDepartment of Gynecology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Carien L CreutzbergDepartment of Clinical Oncology, eiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Tjalling BosseDepartment of Pathology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Alexandra LearyGustave Roussy, Gynecology Unit, U981 INSERM, Villejuif, France. alexandra.leary@gustaveroussy.fr.
Inserm · FRInstitut Gustave Roussy · FRLeiden University Medical Center · NLPeter MacCallum Cancer Centre · AUUniversity Medical Center Groningen · NLUniversity of Manchester · GBQueensland University of Technology · AUUniversity Health Network · CA

Funding

Department of Health NIHR-CS-012-009
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The TransPORTEC consortium previouslclassified high-risk endometrial cancer including poor-risk histologies such as clear cells, into four molecular subtypes "POLE mutated," "microsatellite unstable," "TP53 mutated," and "no specific molecular profile." We evaluated whether DNA damage response biomarkers could further refine this high-risk tumors classification, in particular the heterogeneous "no specific molecular profile" and "TP53 mutated" subsets recently qualified as poor prognosis in high-risk endometrial cancer. DNA damage response biomarkers including proteins involved in DNA damage (δ-H2AX), homologous recombination (RAD51), regulators of error-prone Non Homologous End-Joining (DNA-pk, FANCD2), and PARP-1 were evaluated in 116 high-risk tumors by immunohistochemistry. CD8 and PD-1 expression by immunochemistry and mutation analyses were performed previously. Survival outcome were calculated using Kaplan-Meier and Log-rank test. None of the DNA damage response biomarkers alone were prognostic. However markers were informative within molecular subsets. Among the "no specific molecular profile" subset, δ-H2AX+ was significantly predictive of poor disease free survival (Hazard Ratio = 2.56; p = 0.026), and among "TP53 mutated," a DNA-pk+/FANCD2- profile (favouring error-prone Non Homologous End-Joining) predicted worst disease free survival (Hazard Ratio = 4.95; p = 0.009) resulting in five distinct prognostic subgroups from best to worst prognosis: group1 "POLE mutated/Microsatellite unstable" > group2 "no specific molecular profile with no DNA damage" > group3 "TP53 mutated/Non Homologous End-Joining negative" > group4 "no specific molecular profile with high DNA damage" > group5 "TP53 mutated/Non Homologous End-Joining positive"; p = 0.0002). Actionable targets were also different among subsets. Group3 had significantly higher infiltration of PD-1+ immune cells (p = 0.003), segregating with group1. Group2 had frequent PI3K pathway mutations and ER positivity. While group5, with the worst prognosis, had high DNA damage and PARP-1 expression providing a rationale for PARP inhibition. Our findings have refined the TransPORTEC prognostic classification of high-risk endometrial cancer into five distinct subgroups by integrating DNA damage response biomarkers and identified molecular subtype-specific therapeutic strategies.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorDNA DamageEndometrial NeoplasmsFemaleHumansMiddle AgedPrognosisRisk FactorsBiomarkers, Tumor

Identifiers

PMID29955143
OpenAlexW2810343615

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.