ReviewCancers2026
Clinical Implications of Incorporating Molecular Profiles into the Staging of Endometrial Cancer: A Critical Review of the 2023 FIGO System on the Wave of 2025 ESGO/ESTRO/ESP Guidelines.
Review in Cancers, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This review examines the clinical and practical implications of embedding molecular profiles directly into the 2023 FIGO staging system for endometrial carcinoma, in the context of the 2025 ESGO/ESTRO/ESP guidelines. The primary purpose is to navigate a central conflict in modern oncology: how to deliver increasingly personalized care while maintaining a globally accessible, equitable, and standardized cancer classification system. The 2023 FIGO update represents a paradigm shift from the traditional dualistic model (Type I versus Type II) by allowing molecular findings to redefine stage itself. While this integration offers clear benefits, it introduces significant challenges. First, the system depends on advanced molecular testing, creating a "rich-poor" divide where patients in resource-limited settings are systematically overtreated because testing is unavailable. Second, stage becomes unstable, changing with sequential histologic and molecular re-review, which causes confusion for patients and clinicians. Third, the system lumps prognostically distinct histotypes (Serous, Clear Cell, Carcinosarcoma, and Grade 3 Endometrioid) into a single aggressive stage, obscuring meaningful differences in survival. Fourth, it relies on subjective parameters such as "substantial" lymphovascular space invasion, for which no standardized definition exists, leading to high inter-observer variability. After analyzing these controversies, the review proposes a pragmatic solution: decouple anatomical staging from molecular risk stratification. Staging should remain a purely anatomical, universally applicable descriptor of tumor extent, while molecular and histologic data are used separately within a dynamic risk assessment model, as suggested by the European guidelines. This dual-track approach preserves global comparability, reduces inequity, and maintains diagnostic stability, while still enabling personalized treatment where advanced diagnostics are available.
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.