ArticleGynecologic oncology2023
Detection of endometrial cancer using tampon-based collection and methylated DNA markers.
Article in Gynecologic oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
A Case-control Study of the Clinical Utility of DNA Methylation Testing in Patient-collected Vaginal and Urine Samples: A Novel, Patient-friendly and Simple Diagnostic Solution to Detect Endometrial Cancer.
The ENDOMETRIAL Study: EvaluatioN of DNA methylatiOn Markers for EndomeTrial Cancer Risk-stratification Using Patient-collected urIne and vAginal Samples and Clinician-collected Cervical Samples From Women With Postmenopausal bLeeding
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cervicovaginal specimen biomarkers for early detection of ovarian and endometrial cancer: A review.Cancer medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Artificial intelligence-driven integration of multi-biofluid omics and clinical phenotype enables stratification of endometrial cancer.Cell reports. Medicine · 2026Article
- A DNA methylation assay (MPap) using self-collected tampon versus cytology collection swab for endometrial cancer detection.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026Article
- Application of ultrasound and methylation omics detection in the diagnosis of endometrial cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Unlocking the Potential of Liquid Biopsy: A Paradigm Shift in Endometrial Cancer Care.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Liquid biopsy in gynecological cancers: a translational framework from molecular insights to precision oncology and clinical practice.Journal of experimental & clinical cancer research : CR · 2025Review
- Present progress in biomarker discovery of endometrial cancer by multi-omics approaches.Clinical proteomics · 2025Review
- Gynecologic Cancer Screening and Prevention: State of the Science and Practice.Current treatment options in oncology · 2025Review
- Research Progress of DNA Methylation Markers for Endometrial Carcinoma Diagnosis.Journal of Cancer · 2025Review
- Advancements in Minimally Invasive Techniques and Biomarkers for the Early Detection of Endometrial Cancer: A Comprehensive Review of Novel Diagnostic Approaches and Clinical Implications.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Minimally Invasive and Emerging Diagnostic Approaches in Endometrial Cancer: Epigenetic Insights and the Promise of DNA Methylation.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Unveiling DNA methylation: early diagnosis, risk assessment, and therapy for endometrial cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Review
- Methylated DNA Markers for Sporadic Colorectal and Endometrial Cancer Are Strongly Associated with Lynch Syndrome Cancers.Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
24 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveAlterations in DNA methylation are early events in endometrial cancer (EC) development and may have utility in EC detection via tampon-collected vaginal fluid.
methodsFor discovery, DNA from frozen EC, benign endometrium (BE), and benign cervicovaginal (BCV) tissues underwent reduced representation bisulfite sequencing (RRBS) to identify differentially methylated regions (DMRs). Candidate DMRs were selected based on receiver operating characteristic (ROC) discrimination, methylation level fold-change between cancers and controls, and absence of background CpG methylation. Methylated DNA marker (MDM) validation was performed using qMSP on DNA from independent EC and BE FFPE tissue sets. Women ≥45 years of age with abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) or postmenopausal bleeding (PMB) or any age with biopsy-proven EC self-collected vaginal fluid using a tampon prior to clinically indicated endometrial sampling or hysterectomy. Vaginal fluid DNA was assayed by qMSP for EC-associated MDMs. Random forest modeling analysis was performed to generate predictive probability of underlying disease; results were 500-fold in-silico cross-validated.
resultsThirty-three candidate MDMs met performance criteria in tissue. For the tampon pilot, 100 EC cases were frequency matched by menopausal status and tampon collection date to 92 BE controls. A 28-MDM panel highly discriminated between EC and BE (96% (95%CI 89-99%) specificity; 76% (66-84%) sensitivity (AUC 0.88). In PBS/EDTA tampon buffer, the panel yielded 96% (95% CI 87-99%) specificity and 82% (70-91%) sensitivity (AUC 0.91).
conclusionNext generation methylome sequencing, stringent filtering criteria, and independent validation yielded excellent candidate MDMs for EC. EC-associated MDMs performed with promisingly high sensitivity and specificity in tampon-collected vaginal fluid; PBS-based tampon buffer with added EDTA improved sensitivity. Larger tampon-based EC MDM testing studies are warranted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.