ArticleCureus2022
Evaluation of a Patient With Non-Myoinvasive Uterine Serous Carcinoma Confined to a Polyp and Positive Peritoneal Washings With Somatic ARHGAP35 and KRAS Mutations.
Article in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Giant endometrial polyp in postmenopausal women without hormonal exposure: a case report and literature review.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Fifteen-Centimeter Giant Tamoxifen-Associated Endometrial Polyp Presenting With Constipation: A Case Report and Review of the Literature.Case reports in obstetrics and gynecology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Currently, the application of peritoneal washings as a diagnostic tool for endometrial cancer staging is not well defined. The case described aims to highlight the current ambiguity surrounding the use of peritoneal washings in clinical practice. A 69-year-old G3P3003 presented to her gynecologist with complaints of new-onset heavy vaginal bleeding. The patient sought an endometrial biopsy, which suggested serous endometrial intraepithelial carcinoma (EIC) focally suspicious for invasive carcinoma, with the involvement of polyps. Based on these results, a robotic-assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, bilateral sentinel lymph node dissection, and omentectomy were performed. Results from her final pathology exhibited a stage IA uterine serous carcinoma (USC) involving a polyp (4.2 cm in greatest dimension) with no myometrial or lymphovascular invasion, but washings were positive for adenocarcinoma. Based on her family history of malignancy, the patient underwent germline panel testing. The patient's somatic tumor testing demonstrated proficient DNA mismatch repair status, microsatellite stability, low tumor mutational burden (4 mut/Mb), low loss of heterozygosity (9%), amplification of the ERBB2 (HER2/neu) gene by both immunohistochemistry (3+, 20% positive) and fluorescence in-situ hybridization. Her tumor also had weakly positive estrogen receptor expression (1+, 10% positive); furthermore, some pathogenic variants in KRAS (c.37G>T), PIK3CA (c.263G>A), and TP53 (c.743G>A) were identified. Given the incongruent findings found with the positive peritoneal washing and negative lymph node involvement in addition to molecular testing, management for this patient was unclear. Ultimately, this case highlights a number of advances within the field of gynecological oncology but also emphasizes the persistent ambiguity and incongruency in the management of patients with early-stage high-risk histologies. Moving forward it will become increasingly important to be able to develop a more standardized process to assess how these diagnostic tools should inform prognosis and treatment plans.
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.