ArticleCancer science2018
Efficacy of liquid-based genetic diagnosis of endometrial cancer.
Article in Cancer science, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- The morphological characteristics and arrangements of cells in the liquid-based cytology preparation of patients with endometrial lesions.Diagnostic pathology · 2025Article
- Analysis of endometrial liquid‑based cytology samples to detect somatic mutations and classify ovarian cancer.Oncology letters · 2025Article
- Surgical Outcomes of da Vinci Xi™ and da Vinci SP™ for Early-Stage Endometrial Cancer in Patients Undergoing Hysterectomy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Identification of cancer driver mutations in liquid-based cytology samples for the screening of endometrial diseases.BJC reports · 2023Article
- Cancer-associated gene analysis of cervical cytology samples and liquid-based cytology significantly improve endometrial cancer diagnosis sensitivity.Oncology letters · 2022Article
- Next-generation sequencing analysis of endometrial screening liquid-based cytology specimens: a comparative study to tissue specimens.BMC medical genomics · 2020Article
- Efficacy of liquid-based genetic diagnosis of endometrial cancer.Cancer science · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Although liquid-based cytology (LBC) has increased the sensitivity of cytological diagnosis of endometrial cancer (EC) compared with conventional smear cytology, the sensitivity of LBC for the detection of EC is between 70% and 96% and remains unsatisfactory. In the present study, we compared the efficacy of LBC with liquid-based genetic diagnosis (LBGDx) by amplicon sequencing of five genes including PTEN, PIK3CA, CTNNB1, KRAS, and TP53 in 48 LBC subjects who underwent endometrial screening. Consequently, LBC classified 15 samples as "positive or suspicious for malignancy" and the 15 were later confirmed as EC. However, LBC failed to identify five cases who were diagnosed as EC by additional transvaginal ultrasound and endometrial curettage, indicating that the sensitivity of cytology alone was 75% (15/20). LBGDx identified 11 pathogenic PTEN variants in 10 subjects, six PIK3CA variants in nine, three CTNNB1 variants in five, two KRAS variants in four, and three TP53 variants in three. Collectively, at least one pathogenic variant was identified in 19 subjects, which included 17 EC (15 endometrioid carcinoma and 2 endometrial carcinosarcomas), and one cervical adenocarcinoma. However, LBGDx did not identify any pathogenic mutations in three of the 20 EC, indicating that the sensitivity of LBGDx alone was 85% (17/20). Although five EC were negative for malignancy by LBC and three were negative for pathogenic mutations by LBGDx, the combination of LBC and LBGDx would successfully diagnose all 20 EC. These data suggested that LBGDx is a useful strategy to improve the sensitivity of screening of EC by LBC.
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.