ArticleCancer management and research2020
Article in Cancer management and research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Single-nucleus analysis of menstrual fluid highlights gene expression differences in epithelial cells of endometriosis donors.BMC medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Secretome analysis of breast cancer cells to identify potential target proteins ofFrontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2023Article
- Role of Cell-Free DNA and Deoxyribonucleases in Tumor Progression.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
- An Epitope Platform for Safe and Effective HTLV-1-Immunization: Potential Applications for mRNA and Peptide-Based Vaccines.Viruses · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo investigate the genes of patients with sporadic endometrial cancer (EC) and suspected Lynch syndrome (LS)-related EC in the Chinese population. Identification of meaningful mutation sites can provide theoretical basis for molecular targeted therapy, aiming to improve the prognosis of patients with EC.
methodsWe recruited 388 patients with EC for mismatch repair (MMR) immunohistochemistry and MLH1 methylation analysis. Based on the results, they were divided into four groups: MMR without deletion group (sporadic EC group 1); MLH1&PMS2 deletion and MLH1 methylation group (sporadic EC group 2); MSH2 and/or MSH6 deletion group (suspected LS group); and unclassified group (remainder cases). Patients from each group were randomly screened for whole-exome sequencing detection. Genome Analysis Toolkit, VarScant, MuTect, and CONTRA were used to detect the insertions/deletions, single nucleotide polymorphisms, and copy number variations. Gene Ontology term and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes pathway enrichment analyses were performed with Database for Annotation, Visualization and Integrated Discovery. Protein-protein interaction analysis was accomplished through the STRING database.
resultsThe MMR immunohistochemistry results were positive (without MMR deletion) and negative in 299 patients and 89 patients, respectively. The 32, 10, 13, and 7 patients in the sporadic EC group 1, sporadic EC group 2, suspected LS group, and unclassified group were randomly selected for whole-exome sequencing, respectively. These three groups had a total of 86 common mutation sites, which were distributed on 26 genes. Among the top 30 common high-frequency mutation sites, 12, 5, 4, and 3 mutation sites were located on
conclusionHNRNPCL1, PRAMEF1, CFAP74, and
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.