ArticleInternational journal of cancer2026
Detection of recurrent endometrial cancer via DNA methylation analysis of cervicovaginal self-samples and urine.
Article in International journal of cancer, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnostic performance of CDO1 and ZSCAN12 methylation in endometrial versus cervical samples for endometrial cancer and atypical hyperplasia: a comparative study.Annals of medicine · 2026Article
- Liquid Biopsy for Minimal Residual Disease Assessment in Endometrial and Cervical Cancers: Molecular Rationale, Clinical Evidence, and Translational Barriers.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
DNA methylation analysis of self-collected samples has shown potential for primary endometrial cancer detection. Here, we aimed to explore DNA methylation testing as a non-invasive alternative for post-treatment surveillance. Endometrial cancer patients (n = 43) without recurrence collected pre- and post-treatment cervicovaginal self-samples and urine at home. Additionally, 17 patients with recurrence provided these samples at the time of recurrence. Healthy controls were used as reference. In total, 207 cervicovaginal self-samples and 203 urine samples were tested for nine markers (ADCYAP1, BHLHE22, CDH13, CDO1, GALR1, GHSR, HAND2, SST and ZIC1) using quantitative methylation-specific PCR. Diagnostic performance was assessed using previously established logistic regression models. In patients without recurrence, most marker levels decreased post-treatment compared to pre-treatment, in both sample types. DNA methylation positivity in cervicovaginal self-samples reduced from 90.7% pre-treatment to 19.5% post-treatment (p < .0001). In urine, a decrease from 80.5% to 20.9% was observed (p < .0001). In patients with recurrence, DNA methylation levels of CDH13, CDO1, GALR1, GHSR and HAND2 in cervicovaginal self-samples, and CDO1, GHSR and HAND2 in urine, were higher than in patients without recurrence. DNA methylation positivity was 62.5% in cervicovaginal self-samples and 58.8% in urine among patients with any recurrence, and 100% in cervicovaginal self-samples and 90.0% in urine of patients with a local recurrence specifically. These findings support methylation-based testing as a promising post-treatment surveillance method for endometrial cancer patients. This non-invasive approach could reduce the follow-up burden on patients and healthcare, alleviating challenges related to resource constraints while improving patient comfort.
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.