Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38402734›Full record

ReviewGynecologic oncology2024

Potential of molecular classification to guide fertility-sparing management among young patients with endometrial cancer.

Nuria Agusti, Alexa Kanbergs, Roni Nitecki

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Gynecologic oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
12.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Cancer and fertility management: FIGO best practice advice.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2025
    Guideline
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Nuria AgustiDepartment of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. Electronic address: naugusti@mdanderson.org.
Alexa KanbergsDepartment of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Roni NiteckiDepartment of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · US

Funding

Training of Academic Gynecologic OncologistsT32CA101642 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI ANIL K SOOD, Kathleen Schmeler · 2005 to 2026
$9.2M
NCI NIH HHS T32 CA101642
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The traditional histological classification system for endometrial carcinoma falls short in addressing the disease's molecular heterogeneity, prompting the need for alternative stratification methods. Proactive Molecular Risk Classifier for Endometrial Cancer (ProMisE) has emerged as a clinically efficient tool to categorize endometrial cancers according to mismatch repair deficiency, POLE exonuclease domain mutations, and p53 expression. However, the application of this classification to fertility-sparing treatments remains unexplored, and current guidelines lack specificity in how it should be used. In this review, we summarize the available literature and establish the framework for future investigations focused on molecular profiling-based risk assessment of endometrial cancer, with the goal of utilizing precision medicine to optimally counsel patients seeking fertility-sparing treatment. While the available evidence is limited and of low quality, it does provide insights and frames future perspectives for managing fertility-sparing approaches on the basis of molecular subtypes. Evidence suggests that mismatch repair-deficient tumors are likely to recur despite progestin therapy, emphasizing the need for alternative treatments, with targeted therapies being a new landscape that still needs to be explored. Tumors with POLE mutations exhibit a favorable prognosis, but the safety of hysteroscopic resection alone requires further investigation. p53 abnormal tumors have an unfavorable prognosis, raising questions about their suitability for fertility-sparing treatment. Lastly, the no specific molecular profile (or p53 wild-type) tumors, while having a relatively good prognosis, are heterogeneous and require more precise biomarkers to effectively guide therapy for those with poorer prognoses. Addressing these research gaps will lead to more precise guidelines to ensure optimal selection for fertility-sparing treatment.

Indexed as

Endometrial NeoplasmsFertility PreservationDNA Mismatch RepairFemaleHumansMutationBiomarkersEndometrial cancerFertility-sparingMolecular classification

Identifiers

PMID38402734
PMCPMC11275632
OpenAlexW4392135010

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.