ArticleGynecologic oncology2025
Peritoneal washings analysis in endometrial cancer: Comparison of somatic mutation detection with panel sequencing and traditional cytology.
Article in Gynecologic oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe prognostic significance of positive pelvic washings in endometrial cancer (EC) remains unknown, and little data exist regarding washings as a source of genetic information in relation to a patient's tumor. We sought to assess the feasibility of identifying EC mutations in peritoneal washings.
methodsPeritoneal washings from 21 biopsy-confirmed newly diagnosed patients with EC across disease stages between 09/2018 and 07/2019 were collected. Peritoneal washings, primary EC, and normal DNA samples were subjected to next-generation sequencing targeting 468 cancer-related genes. Sequencing results were compared to cytological analysis.
resultsFor the 21 EC cases included, cytology found 8 (38 %) of the peritoneal washings as positive, 7 (33 %) as negative, and 6 (29 %) as suspicious or rare-atypical cells. Based on molecular analysis, tumor mutations (TMs) were detected in 18/21 (86 %) of peritoneal washings. Overall, 11/21 (52 %) samples demonstrated concordant results between cytologic and molecular analysis, and all positive cytologic results were confirmed with molecular analysis. However, of cases with negative or suspicious cytology results, 77 % (10/13) were found to have TMs in washings. Five patients with negative cytology were positive on molecular analysis (5/7, 71 %), and 5 patients with suspicious washings demonstrated TMs (5/6, 83 %). Of the 10 EC patients who developed recurrences, regardless of stage, 5/10 (50 %) patients had positive cytology, whereas 9/10 (90 %) had TMs based on molecular analysis.
conclusionsMutational analysis of peritoneal washings using panel sequencing in EC is feasible. A substantial subset of patients with cytology-negative or suspicious washings had TMs detected.
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.