Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39417689›Full record

ArticleClinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research2024

Genomic Landscape of ctDNA and Real-World Outcomes in Advanced Endometrial Cancer.

Pamela Soberanis Pina, Keelia Clemens, Adrian Bubie, Brooke Grant, Ginger Haynes, Nicole Zhang, Leylah Drusbosky, Stephanie Lheureux

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Impact of TP53 somatic mutations on prognosis in endometrial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. 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
  13. 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

8 authors.

Pamela Soberanis PinaDivision of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-9955-1245
Keelia ClemensGuardant 360, Redwood City, California.ORCID 0009-0004-2754-1795
Adrian BubieGuardant 360, Redwood City, California.ORCID 0000-0001-8561-1801
Brooke GrantDivision of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-9516-4515
Ginger HaynesGuardant 360, Redwood City, California.ORCID 0009-0007-4671-2328
Nicole ZhangGuardant 360, Redwood City, California.ORCID 0009-0001-2706-5838
Leylah DrusboskyGuardant 360, Redwood City, California.ORCID 0000-0002-9401-4600
Stephanie LheureuxDivision of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-4405-5890

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposectDNA is a novel technique extensively studied in solid tumors, although not currently well defined in endometrial cancer. EXPERIMENTAL

designA de-identified retrospective analysis of 1,988 patients with advanced/recurrent endometrial cancer was performed. In addition, an analysis of a real-world evidence cohort was completed (n = 1,266). Patients underwent ctDNA testing using Guardant360 during routine clinical care. The objective was to describe and assess molecular landscape using ctDNA.

resultsAmong 1,988 ctDNA samples, at least one somatic alteration was detected in 91.6% (n = 1,821). Most frequently altered genes were TP53 (64%), PIK3CA (29%), PTEN (25%), ARID1A (20%), and KRAS (14%). Overall, 18.5% had amplifications, with the majority identified in CCNE1 (40.9%), PIK3CA (22%), and EGFR (19.3%). From the real-world evidence cohort, those with TP53 mutations had a worse overall survival (OS) versus those without TP53 mutations (P = 0.02) and those with TP53 comutations had an inferior OS in comparison with TP53-mutated only (P = 0.016). Amongst these, patients with a PIK3CA comutation (P = 0.012) and CCNE1 amplification (P = 0.01) had an inferior OS compared with those with only TP53 mutations. Fifty-seven patients with newly diagnosed endometrial cancer had at least two serial ctDNA samples showing evolution in detected variants compared with baseline samples, with TP53 being the most frequent change.

conclusionsThis study is one of the largest cohorts of ctDNA currently reported in endometrial cancer. The presence of TP53 mutation and other comutations detected by ctDNA have a negative effect on outcomes. This report suggests that ctDNA analysis is feasible and could become a useful biomarker for endometrial cancer.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorCirculating Tumor DNAEndometrial NeoplasmsAdultAgedAged, 80 and overClass I Phosphatidylinositol 3-KinasesDNA-Binding ProteinsDNA Mutational AnalysisFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansLiquid BiopsyMiddle AgedMutationNeoplasm StagingARID1A protein, humanBiomarkers, TumorCirculating Tumor DNAClass I Phosphatidylinositol 3-KinasesDNA-Binding ProteinsKRAS protein, humanPIK3CA protein, humanProto-Oncogene Proteins p21(ras)PTEN PhosphohydrolasePTEN protein, humanTP53 protein, humanTranscription FactorsTumor Suppressor Protein p53

Identifiers

PMID39417689
PMCPMC11647206

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.