ReviewBritish journal of cancer2026
Advances in urinary biomarkers for endometrial cancer detection.
Review in British journal of cancer, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The incidence of endometrial cancer is rising globally, placing significant burden on diagnostic pathways for women with abnormal uterine bleeding. Current evaluation relies primarily on transvaginal ultrasound followed by invasive endometrial visualisation and sampling, although most symptomatic women have no sinister underlying pathology. Urine offers a promising non-invasive and easily repeatable biofluid capable of capturing tumour-associated signals through both systemic renal filtration and locally shed uterine material. This review summarises emerging evidence on urinary biomarkers for endometrial cancer detection, including somatic mutations, DNA methylation markers, proteins and peptides, vibrational spectroscopy signatures, microRNAs, metabolites and urine cytology. These biomarkers collectively reflect key biological processes driving endometrial carcinogenesis, including hormonal and metabolic dysregulation, immune activation, epithelial-stromal disruption, cellular proliferation and genomic instability. Among current candidates, DNA methylation panels and mutation-based assays have demonstrated encouraging diagnostic performance, with studies reporting sensitivities and specificities exceeding 80-90% in symptomatic populations. Urine cytology also shows strong diagnostic potential in selected cohorts, while metabolomic, proteomic and spectroscopy-based approaches remain promising but require further standardisation and prospective validation. Although not yet suitable for population screening, urinary biomarkers show considerable potential for risk stratification and triage of symptomatic women, potentially reducing unnecessary invasive investigations. Clinical translation will require standardised protocols, multi-centre validation and integration into existing diagnostic pathways.
Identifiers
42581092What 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.