ArticleCancers2022
Identification of Lynch Syndrome in Patients with Endometrial Cancer Based on a Germline Next Generation Sequencing Multigene Panel Test.
Article in Cancers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Deciphering gene mutations in the efficacy and toxicity of antineoplastic drugs: an oncology pharmacist's perspective.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Review
- A brief review of Lynch syndrome: understanding the dual cancer risk between endometrial and colorectal cancer.Oncology reviews · 2025Review
- Diagnosis of patients with Lynch syndrome lacking the Amsterdam II or Bethesda criteria.Hereditary cancer in clinical practice · 2023Review
- Lynch Syndrome and Gynecologic Tumors: Incidence, Prophylaxis, and Management of Patients with Cancer.Cancers · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We aimed to investigate the prevalence and relative contributions of LS and non-LS mutations in patients with endometrial cancer in Korea. We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 204 patients diagnosed with endometrial cancer who underwent a germline next generation sequencing multigene panel test covering MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2, and EPCAM at three tertiary centers. Thirty patients (14.7%) with pathogenic mutations (12 MLH1; 6 MSH2; 10 MSH6; 2 PMS2) and 20 patients (9.8%) with 22 unclassified variants (8 MLH1; 8 MSH2; 2 MSH6; 3 PMS2; 1 EPCAM) were identified. After excluding four close relatives of a proband, the prevalence of LS was 13.0% (26/200). Patients with LS were more likely than those with sporadic cancer to be younger at diagnosis (48 vs. 53 years, p = 0.045) and meet the Amsterdam II criteria (66.7 vs. 3.5%, p < 0.001). Non-endometrioid histology was more prevalent in patients with MSH6 or PMS2 mutations (41.7%) than those with MLH1 or MSH2 mutations (5.6%, p = 0.026). In this pre-selected cohort of endometrial cancer patients who underwent next generation sequencing, the prevalence of LS was 13%, thus supporting the use of gene panel testing for endometrial cancer patients.
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.