ArticlePathologica2024
Biomarker characterization in endometrial cancer in Europe: first survey data analysis from 69 pathological academic and hospital labs.
Article in Pathologica, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- FIGO 2023 staging system with/without molecular classification vs. FIGO 2009 in 172 endometrial cancer patients.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2026Article
- Review
- Article
- Lights and shadows of microsatellite status characterization in gastrointestinal cancers in the era of cancer precision therapy.Pathologica · 2025Review
- Impact of the FIGO 2023 Staging System on the Adjuvant Treatment of Endometrial Cancer: A Comparative Analysis with FIGO 2009.Cancers · 2025Article
- Unsolved Issues in the Integrated Histo-Molecular Classification of Endometrial Carcinoma and Therapeutic Implications.Cancers · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Endometrial carcinoma (EC) is the commonest gynecological cancer affecting women in Western populations. To predict patient risk, the 2020 edition of the World Health Organization (WHO) Classification of Tumors of the Female Genital Tract stressed the importance of integrated histo-molecular classification of the disease. This survey analysis poses attention on the most frequently used immunohistochemical and molecular markers adopted in daily categorization of ECs in European laboratories. Methods: We analyzed data collected through questionnaires administered to 40 Italian, 20 Spanish, 3 Swiss and 6 United Kingdom (UK) laboratories. We collected information regarding daily practice in EC evaluation, specifically concerning mismatch repair status (MMR) and microsatellite instability (MSI). Summary and descriptive statistical analyses were carried out to evaluate the current practice of each laboratory. Results: The results show that MMR status is mainly evaluated by using immunohistochemistry (IHC) on most EC samples. The most frequent approach for the analysis of MMR status is IHC of four proteins (PMS2, MSH6, MSH2, MLH1). MSI analysis by molecular methods is uncommon but useful as a supplemental tool in specific conditions. MLH1 promoter hypermethylation and BRAF V600 mutations analysis are performed in case of negative expression of MLH1/PMS2. Other markers (mainly p53 followed by POLE and PTEN) are investigated in particular in Spain and Switzerland in a consistent number of cases. Conclusion: Guidelines consultation and standardization of laboratory procedures are efficient means for EC prognostic risk stratification and improving the quality of care.
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.