Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32381512›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society2020

Improving response to progestin treatment of low-grade endometrial cancer.

Eva Baxter, Donal J Brennan, Jessica N McAlpine, Jennifer J Mueller, Frédéric Amant, Mignon D J M van Gent, David G Huntsman, Robert L Coleman, Shannon N Westin, Melinda S Yates and 4 more

Erratum issuedOpen access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Evolving treatment paradigms in metastatic or recurrent low-grade endometrial cancer: When is hormonal-based therapy the preferred option?International journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society · 2023
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 9 institutions in 8 countries.

Eva BaxterQueensland Centre for Gynaecological Cancer Research, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia e.baxter@uq.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0001-7685-8036
Donal J BrennanDepartment of Gynaecological Oncology, UCD School of Medicine, Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
Jessica N McAlpineDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Jennifer J MuellerDepartment of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.
Frédéric AmantDepartment of Oncology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Flanders, Belgium.
Mignon D J M van GentCentre for Gynaecologic Oncology Amsterdam, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Netherlands Cancer Institute and Amsterdam University Medical Centres, Amsterdam, Noord-Holland, The Netherlands.
David G HuntsmanBC Cancer Agency, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Robert L ColemanDepartment of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Shannon N WestinDepartment of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Melinda S YatesDepartment of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Camilla KrakstadCentre for Cancer Biomarkers CCBIO, Department of Clinical Science, University of Bergen, Bergen, Vestland, Norway.
Michael A QuinnRoyal Women's Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Monika JandaCentre for Health Services Research, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Andreas ObermairQueensland Centre for Gynaecological Cancer Research, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
The University of Queensland · AUThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · USThe Netherlands Cancer Institute · NLBC Cancer Agency · CAGynecologic Oncology Group · USHaukeland University Hospital · NOMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · USRoyal Women's Hospital · AUUniversity College Dublin · IE

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI SELWYN M VICKERS · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis review examines how response rates to progestin treatment of low-grade endometrial cancer can be improved. In addition to providing a brief overview of the pathogenesis of low-grade endometrial cancer, we discuss limitations in the current classification of endometrial cancer and how stratification may be refined using molecular markers to reproducibly identify 'low-risk' cancers which may represent the best candidates for progestin therapy. We also discuss constraints in current approaches to progestin treatment of low-grade endometrial cancer and perform a systematic review of predictive biomarkers.

methodsPubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Cochrane Library were searched for studies reporting pre-treatment biomarkers associated with outcome in women with low-grade endometrial cancer or endometrial hyperplasia with an intact uterus who received progestin treatment. Studies of fewer than 50 women were excluded. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (ID 152374). A descriptive synthesis of pre-treatment predictive biomarkers reported in the included studies was conducted.

resultsOf 1908 records reviewed, 19 studies were included. Clinical features such as age or body mass index cannot predict progestin response. Lesions defined as 'low-risk' by FIGO criteria (stage 1A, grade 1) can respond well; however, the reproducibility and prognostic ability of the current histopathological classification system is suboptimal. Molecular markers can be reproducibly assessed, have been validated as prognostic biomarkers, and may inform patient selection for progestin treatment. DNA polymerase epsilon (POLE)-ultramutated tumors and a subset of p53 wild-type or DNA mismatch repair (MMR)-deficient tumors with 'low-risk' features (eg, progesterone and estrogen receptor-positive) may have improved response rates, though this needs to be validated. DISCUSSION: Molecular markers can identify cases which may be candidates for progestin treatment. More work is needed to validate these biomarkers and potentially identify new ones. Predictive biomarkers are anticipated to inform future research into progestin treatment of low-grade endometrial cancer and ultimately improve patient outcomes.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorEndometrial HyperplasiaEndometrial NeoplasmsFemaleHumansNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalProgestinsRisk FactorsBiomarkers, TumorProgestinsendometrial hyperplasiaendometrial neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID32381512
PMCPMC8445150
OpenAlexW3022965701

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.