ArticleJournal of gynecologic oncology2026
Combined ER/PR co-positivity enhances prognostic stratification within molecular subtypes of endometrial cancer.
Article in Journal of gynecologic oncology, 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.
- Prognostic Value of p53 Status in Endometrial Cancer: Real-World Evidence from a Tertiary Center.Cancers · 2026Article
- MUC16 promotes endometrial cancer progression and modulates sensitivity to lapatinib through the ESR1/PI3K/AKT axis.Translational oncology · 2026Article
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
Abstract
objectiveTo explore the prognostic value of combined estrogen receptor (ER)/progesterone receptor (PR) expression patterns within molecular subtypes of endometrial cancer (EC), particularly in the prognostically heterogeneous no specific molecular profile (NSMP) subtype.
methodsA retrospective cohort study of 388 EC patients underwent next-generation sequencing-based molecular classification and ER/PR immunohistochemistry. ER/PR status was categorized as co-positive (coP), co-negative, or discordant. Multivariable Cox models and concordance index (C-index) analyses assessed disease-specific survival (DSS) and progression-free survival (PFS).
resultsER/PR co-positivity independently predicted improved DSS overall (hazard ratio [HR]=0.143; 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.065, 0.314; p<0.001) after adjusting for stage and molecular subtype. In NSMP (n=254), coP predicted superior DSS (HR=0.21; 95% CI=0.06, 0.87; p=0.034), while ER positivity predicted better PFS (HR=0.13; 95% CI=0.02, 0.88; p=0.037). Adding coP to staging improved NSMP-DSS prediction (ΔC-index=+0.082; p<0.05). No significant associations were found in non-NSMP subgroups.
conclusionER/PR co-positivity is a powerful independent predictor of favorable DSS in EC, particularly refining risk stratification for the NSMP subtype when integrated with molecular classification.
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.