Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39013200›Full record

GuidelineRevista colombiana de obstetricia y ginecologia2024

Colombian consensus for the molecular diagnosis of endometrial cancer

Marc Edy Pierre, Angélica Viviana Fletcher Prieto, Juliana Rodríguez, Abraham Hernández Blanquisett, Ana Milena Gómez Camacho, Rafael Parra Medina, Lucrecia Mojica Silva, Robinson Fernández, Pedro Hernando Calderón Quiroz

Abstract readConsensus StatementPractice GuidelineEnglish Abstract
In one paragraph

Guideline in Revista colombiana de obstetricia y ginecologia, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Updates and controversies in the management of uterine serous carcinoma and uterine carcinosarcoma.International journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society · 2025
    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

9 authors.

Marc Edy PierreCentro de tratamiento e investigación sobre el Cáncer Luis Carlos Sarmiento (CTIC), Bogotá, Colombia.ORCID 0000-0003-2119-9840
Angélica Viviana Fletcher PrietoCentro de Investigaciones Clínica San Diego-CIOSAD, Bogotá, Colombia. Centro Internacional de Alta Tecnología (CLINALTEC), Ibagué, Colombia.ORCID 0000-0001-8634-6261
Juliana RodríguezFundación Santa Fe de Bogotá, Bogotá, Colombia. Grupo de Investigación Clínica y Epidemiológica del Cáncer (GICEC), Instituto Nacional de Cancerología, Bogotá, Colombia. Departamento de Obstetricia y Ginecología, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia.ORCID 0000-0002-5472-4093
Abraham Hernández BlanquisettHospital Serena del Mar, Cartagena, Colombia.ORCID 0000-0002-0258-5888
Ana Milena Gómez CamachoHospital Universitario San Ignacio, Bogotá, Colombia. Fundación Santa Fe de Bogotá, Bogotá, Colombia.
Rafael Parra MedinaInstituto Nacional de Cancerología, Bogotá, Colombia. Fundación Universitaria de Ciencias de la Salud, Bogotá, Colombia.
Lucrecia Mojica SilvaLiga contra el Cáncer. Villavicencio, Colombia.
Robinson FernándezClínica La Asunción. Barranquilla, Colombia.
Pedro Hernando Calderón QuirozInstituto Nacional de Cancerología, Bogotá, Colombia. Hospital Universitario Clínica San Rafael, Bogotá, Colombia.ORCID 0000-0003-3672-4820

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: The Cancer Genome Atlas research program (TCGA) developed the molecular classification for endometrial cancer with prognostic and therapeutic utility, which was replaced by the ProMisE (Proactive Molecular Risk Classifier for Endometrial Cancer) classification by consensus and international guidelines due to its high cost. This article aims to present national recommendations from an expert consensus that allows unification and implementation of the molecular classification for women with endometrial cancer nationwide, with a rational use of resources and technology. Methods: Consensus of 36 experts in clinical oncology, oncological gynecology, pathology, and genetics, with clinical practice in the national territory. The leader group performed a literature review and structuring of questions rated 1 to 9 points. A modified nominal group technique was used. There was a face-to-face meeting with master presentations, deliberative dialogue, and Google Forms (Google LLC, Mountain View, CA, USA) questionnaire voting with analysis and discussion of responses. The non-consensual responses led to a second round of voting. The final manuscript was finally prepared and revised. Results: Seven recommendations were formulated integrating the panelist responses based on evidence, but adjusted to the Colombian context and reality. Recommendation 1. The molecular classification is recommended in all the endometrial cancers using the immunohistochemistry markers as subrogated results from the molecular profile initially proposed in the TCGA classification. Recommendation 2. The sequential test strategy is recommended, starting with the immunohistochemistry markers (p53, MLH1, MSH 2, MSH6, PMS2) simultaneously in all the patients, defining to request POLE (DNA polymerase epsilon) (if available) according to the risk classification based on the surgical piece. Recommendation 3. It is recommended, that the gynecologist oncologist should be the one to request the POLE (if available) according to the final pathology report. This test must be requested for all endometrial cancers stage I-II, except in low risk (stage IA low grade endometrioid histology without linfovascular invasion normal p53) and, stages III-IV without residual disease, without affecting the request of subrogated immunohistochemistry molecular markers upon histology. The consensus proposes that the POLE is requested after the immunohistochemistry and according to the categories in the risk classification established by the 2020 ESGO/ESTRO/ESP guidelines. Recommendation 4. It is recommended to perform immunohistochemistry for hormonal receptors for all women with endometrial cancer and the HER2 in patients with p53abn, simultaneously with the others immunohistochemistry markers. Recommendation 5. It is recommended to perform the immunohistochemistry markers (p53, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6 y PMS2) in an initial endometrial biopsy or curettage when the specimen is adequate and available. In case the initial immunohistochemistry is inconclusive, or there are histological discrepancies between the initial and definitive pathology, it is recommended to repeat the molecular profile in the surgical pathology. The immunohistochemistry markers must be reported in the pathology report according to the CAP (College of American Pathologists) recommendations, independently of the type of sample. Recommendation 6. It is recommended to perform MLH1 promoter methylation testing in patients who exhibit loss of expression of MLH1 in immunohistochemistry whether it is accompanied or not with loss of expression of PMS2. All the patients with deficient MMR (mismatch repair), should be sent for genetic counseling to rule out Lynch syndrome. Recommendation 7. It is recommended to consider the molecular classification in addition to the classical histopathological criteria when making adjuvant judgments, as incorporated by the classification of prognostic groups of the 2020 ESGO/ESTRO/ESP guidelines. Conclusions: It is necessary to implement the molecular classification of endometrial cancer in clinical practice in accordance to the Colombian context, due to its prognostic and probably predictive value. This will enable the characterization of the Colombian population in order to offer individualized guided treatments. This is an academic and nonregulatory document.

Indexed as

Endometrial NeoplasmsBiomarkers, TumorColombiaConsensusFemaleHumansMolecular Diagnostic TechniquesPrognosisBiomarkers, TumorclassificationconsensusEndometrial neoplasmsmolecular biologyprognosis

Identifiers

PMID39013200
PMCPMC11208073

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.