ArticleInternational journal of women's health2025
Diagnostic Value of ADC in Distinguishing Endometrial Cancer from Atypical Endometrial Hyperplasia and Within Molecular Subtypes.
Article in International journal of women's health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- From Abnormal Uterine Bleeding to Malignancy: The Role of Hormonal Profiling and Histopathology in Early Detection of Endometrial Carcinoma.Advanced biomedical research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of using specific indicators, particularly the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), alone or in combination to differentiate endometrial cancer (EC) from atypical endometrial hyperplasia (AEH) and to explore non-invasive biomarkers for the molecular classification of EC. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 300 EC and 126 AEH cases who had undergone preoperative magnetic resonance imaging, complete blood count, coagulation profile testing, and tumor biomarkers assessment. Postoperative molecular classification was conducted on 76 EC samples. Diagnostic values were assessed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis and binary logistic regression with forward selection to determine the optimal indicator combinations. Furthermore, this study evaluated the variability of parameters across EC molecular subtypes. Results: The ADC effectively balanced sensitivity and specificity in differentiating EC from AEH. An optimal diagnostic model including age, fibrinogen, and ADC achieved the area under the curve (AUC) of 0.9143, with 84.67% sensitivity and 88.89% specificity. ADC values were found to be lower in EC cases that exhibited a higher Ki-67 index or a higher histological grade. Notably, the NSMP subtype presented significantly higher ADC values compared to the other three molecular subtypes. The p53abn subtype exhibited the highest prevalence of abnormal HE4 levels and patients aged ≥65 (both 6/12, 50%) yet normal CA125 and CA19-9 levels. Conclusion: This retrospective study demonstrated that ADC, especially when combined with age and fibrinogen, is a valuable biomarker for distinguishing EC from AEH. In addition to indicating the Ki-67 index and histological grade, ADC values also serve as a promising tool for identifying the NSMP subtype within EC. Future studies should focus on multi-center, prospective studies with larger sample sizes to validate and refine the diagnostic value of ADC in differentiating EC from AEH, as well as in the molecular classification of EC.
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.