Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33232359›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Clinical factors as prognostic variables among molecular subgroups of endometrial cancer.

Anne Kolehmainen, Annukka Pasanen, Taru Tuomi, Riitta Koivisto-Korander, Ralf Bützow, Mikko Loukovaara

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Associations between molecular subtypes and high-risk pathological factors in endometrial cancer.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Anne KolehmainenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Helsinki University Hospital and University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Annukka PasanenDepartment of Pathology, Helsinki University Hospital and Research Program in Applied Tumor Genomics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Taru TuomiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Helsinki University Hospital and University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Riitta Koivisto-KoranderDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Helsinki University Hospital and University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Ralf BützowDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Helsinki University Hospital and University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Mikko LoukovaaraDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Helsinki University Hospital and University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID 0000-0002-4372-2367
University of Helsinki · FI

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical factors may influence endometrial cancer survival outcomes. We examined the prognostic significance of age, body mass index (BMI), and type 2 diabetes among molecular subgroups of endometrial cancer.

methodsThis was a single institution retrospective study of patients who underwent surgery for endometrial carcinoma between January 2007 and December 2012. Tumors were classified into four molecular subgroups by immunohistochemistry of mismatch repair (MMR) proteins and p53, and sequencing of polymerase-ϵ (POLE). Overall, cancer-related, and non-cancer-related mortality were estimated using univariable and multivariable survival analyses.

resultsAge >65 years was associated with increased mortality rates in the whole cohort (n = 515) and in the "no specific molecular profile" (NSMP) (n = 218) and MMR deficient (MMR-D) (n = 191) subgroups during a median follow-up time of 81 months (range 1‒136). However, hazard ratios for cancer-related mortality were non-significant for NSMP and MMR-D. Diabetes was associated with increased overall and non-cancer-related mortality in the whole cohort and MMR-D subgroup. Overweight/obesity had no effect on outcomes in the whole cohort, but was associated with decreased overall and cancer-related mortality in the NSMP subgroup, and increased overall and non-cancer-related mortality in the MMR-D subgroup. Overweight/obesity effect on cancer-related mortality in the NSMP subgroup remained unchanged after controlling for confounders. High-risk uterine factors were more common, and estrogen and progesterone receptor expression less common in NSMP subtype cancers of normal-weight patients compared with overweight/obese patients. No clinical factors were associated with outcomes in p53 aberrant (n = 69) and POLE mutant (n = 37) subgroups. No cancer-related deaths occurred in the POLE mutant subgroup.

conclusionsThe prognostic effects of age, BMI, and type 2 diabetes do not appear to be uniform for the molecular subgroups of endometrial cancer. Our data support further evaluation of BMI combined with genomics-based risk-assessment.

Indexed as

DNA Mismatch RepairDNA Polymerase IIEndometrial NeoplasmsMutationPoly-ADP-Ribose Binding ProteinsTumor Suppressor Protein p53AgedDisease-Free SurvivalFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesRisk FactorsSurvival RateDNA Polymerase IIPOLE protein, humanPoly-ADP-Ribose Binding ProteinsTP53 protein, humanTumor Suppressor Protein p53

Identifiers

PMID33232359
PMCPMC7685425
OpenAlexW3106929859

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.