Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34536971›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics2022

Prognostic value of the TCGA molecular classification in uterine carcinosarcoma.

Antonio Travaglino, Antonio Raffone, Diego Raimondo, Damiano Arciuolo, Giuseppe Angelico, Michele Valente, Giulia Scaglione, Nicoletta D'alessandris, Paolo Casadio, Frediano Inzani and 4 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.2field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 54 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Uterine carcinosarcoma vs endometrial serous and clear cell carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis of survival.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Prognostic value of the TCGA molecular classification in uterine carcinosarcoma.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. An update on the role of SMARCA4 deficiency in gynecological neoplasms: how and where.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2026
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

14 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Antonio TravaglinoGynecopathology and Breast Pathology Unit, Department of Woman's Health Science, Agostino Gemelli University Polyclinic, Rome, Italy.
Antonio RaffoneGynecology and Obstetrics Unit, Department of Neuroscience, Reproductive Sciences and Dentistry, School of Medicine, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.
Diego RaimondoDivision of Gynecology and Human Reproduction Physiopathology, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences (DIMEC), IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Univeristaria di Bologna, S Orsola Hospital, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Damiano ArciuoloGynecopathology and Breast Pathology Unit, Department of Woman's Health Science, Agostino Gemelli University Polyclinic, Rome, Italy.
Giuseppe AngelicoGynecopathology and Breast Pathology Unit, Department of Woman's Health Science, Agostino Gemelli University Polyclinic, Rome, Italy.
Michele ValenteGynecopathology and Breast Pathology Unit, Department of Woman's Health Science, Agostino Gemelli University Polyclinic, Rome, Italy.
Giulia ScaglioneGynecopathology and Breast Pathology Unit, Department of Woman's Health Science, Agostino Gemelli University Polyclinic, Rome, Italy.
Nicoletta D'alessandrisGynecopathology and Breast Pathology Unit, Department of Woman's Health Science, Agostino Gemelli University Polyclinic, Rome, Italy.
Paolo CasadioDivision of Gynecology and Human Reproduction Physiopathology, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences (DIMEC), IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Univeristaria di Bologna, S Orsola Hospital, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Frediano InzaniGynecopathology and Breast Pathology Unit, Department of Woman's Health Science, Agostino Gemelli University Polyclinic, Rome, Italy.
Antonio MolloGynecology and Obstetrics Unit, Department of Medicine, Surgery and Dentistry "Schola Medica Salernitana", University of Salerno, Baronissi, Italy.
Angela SantoroGynecopathology and Breast Pathology Unit, Department of Woman's Health Science, Agostino Gemelli University Polyclinic, Rome, Italy.
Renato SeracchioliDivision of Gynecology and Human Reproduction Physiopathology, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences (DIMEC), IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Univeristaria di Bologna, S Orsola Hospital, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Gian Franco ZannoniGynecopathology and Breast Pathology Unit, Department of Woman's Health Science, Agostino Gemelli University Polyclinic, Rome, Italy.
Agostino Gemelli University Polyclinic · ITAzienda USL di Bologna · ITUniversity of Bologna · ITUniversity of Salerno · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe TCGA molecular groups of endometrial carcinoma are "POLE-mutated" (POLEmut), "microsatellite-instable/mismatch repair-deficient" (MSI/MMRd), "TP53-mutated/p53-abnormal" (TP53mut/p53abn), and "no specific molecular profile" (NSMP).

objectivePrognostic assessment of the TCGA groups in uterine carcinosarcoma (UCS). SEARCH STRATEGY: Systematic review from January 2000 to January 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies assessing the TCGA groups in UCS. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed by Kaplan-Meier and Cox analyses (reference: TP53mut/p53abn group) and compared with endometrioid and serous carcinomas (original TCGA cohort), with a significant P < 0.050. MAIN

resultsFive studies with 263 UCS were included. Compared with TP53mut/p53abn UCS, MSI/MMRd UCS showed significantly better PFS (P < 0.001) but similar OS (P = 0.788), whereas NSMP UCS showed similar PFS (P = 0.936) and OS (P = 0.240). Compared with their endometrioid/serous counterparts, NSMP and TP53mut/p53abn UCS showed significantly worse PFS (P < 0.001 and P = 0.004) and OS (P < 0.001 and P < 0.001), while MSI/MMRd UCS showed similar PFS (P = 0.595) but significantly worse OS (P < 0.001). The POLEmut group showed neither recurrences nor deaths in both the UCS and the endometrioid/serous carcinoma cohorts.

conclusionPOLEmut UCS show excellent prognosis, whereas TP53mut/p53abn and NSMP UCS show a prognosis even worse than that of TP53mut/p53abn endometrioid/serous carcinomas. The prognosis of MSI/MMRd UCS remains to be defined.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, EndometrioidCarcinosarcomaEndometrial NeoplasmsUterine NeoplasmsFemaleHumansPrognosiscancerendoscopic surgerygyne-oncologylaparoscopymortality

Identifiers

PMID34536971
PMCPMC9292561
OpenAlexW3200153268

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.