Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34529911›Full record

ArticleRadiology and oncology2021

Pre-treatment risk assessment of women with endometrial cancer: differences in outcomes of molecular and clinical classifications in the Slovenian patient cohort.

Jure Knez, Monika Sobocan, Urska Belak, Rajko Kavalar, Mateja Zupin, Tomaz Büdefeld, Uros Potocnik, Iztok Takac

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Radiology and oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jure KnezDivison of Gynecology and Perinatology, University Medical Centre Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia.
Monika SobocanDivison of Gynecology and Perinatology, University Medical Centre Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia.
Urska BelakDivison of Gynecology and Perinatology, University Medical Centre Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia.
Rajko KavalarDepartment of Pathology, University Medical Centre Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia.
Mateja ZupinCentre for Human Molecular Genetics and Pharmacogenomics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia.
Tomaz BüdefeldCentre for Human Molecular Genetics and Pharmacogenomics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia.
Uros PotocnikCentre for Human Molecular Genetics and Pharmacogenomics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia.
Iztok TakacDivison of Gynecology and Perinatology, University Medical Centre Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia.
University Clinical Centre Maribor · SIUniversity of Maribor · SI

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe aim of this study was to evaluate changes in prognostic risk profiles of women with endometrial cancer by comparing the clinical risk assessment with the integrated molecular risk assessment profiling. PATIENTS AND

methodsThis prospective study recruited patients with biopsy proven endometrial cancer treated at the University Medical Centre Maribor between January 2020 to February 2021. Patient clinical data was assessed and categorized according to the currently valid European Society of Gynaecological Oncology, European SocieTy for Radiotherapy and Oncology, and European Society of Pathology (ESGO/ESTRO/ESP) guidelines on endometrial cancer. Molecular tumour characterization included determination of exonuclease domain of DNA polymerase-epsilon (POLE) mutational status by Sanger sequencing and imunohistochemical specimen evaluation on the presence of mismatch repair deficiencies (MMRd) and p53 abnormalities (p53abn).

resultsFourty-five women were included in the study. Twenty-two tumours were of non-specific mutational profile (NSMP) (56.4%), 13 were classified as MMRd (33.3%), 3 were classified as p53abn (7.7%) and 1 was classified as POLE mutated (2.6%). Six tumours (15.4%) had multiple molecular classifiers, these were studied separately and were not included in the risk assessment. The clinical risk-assessment classified 21 women (53.8%) as low-risk, 5 women (12.8%) as intermediate risk, 2 women as high-intermediate risk (5.1%), 10 women (25.6%) as high risk and 1 patient as advanced metastatic (2.6%). The integrated molecular classification changed risk for 4 women (10.3%).

conclusionsIntegrated molecular risk improves personalized risk assessment in endometrial cancer and could potentially improve therapeutic precision. Further molecular stratification with biomarkers is especially needed in the NSMP group to improve personalized risk-assessment.

Indexed as

Endometrial NeoplasmsDNA Polymerase IIFemaleHumansPrognosisProspective StudiesRisk AssessmentDNA Polymerase IIendometrial cancermolecular classificationrisk assessment

Identifiers

PMID34529911
PMCPMC8884849
OpenAlexW3201541894

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.