ArticleInternational journal of molecular sciences2023
Comparison of Methods for Testing Mismatch Repair Status in Endometrial Cancer.
Article in International journal of molecular sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pan-cancer prevalence of microsatellite instability and Lynch syndrome in India.Familial cancer · 2026Article
- The economic value of mismatch repair-guided immunotherapy in endometrial cancer: companion testing and patient selection.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Molecular Pathways and Biomarkers in Endometrial Carcinoma: Paving the Way for Precision Medicine.Anti-cancer agents in medicinal chemistry · 2026Review
- Microsatellite Instability Status and Mismatch Repair Defects Testing in Endometrial Cancer-Insights from the Multicenter E-PEC Trial.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Improving the performance of polymerase chain reaction for microsatellite instability testing in endometrial cancer.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Response to PD-1 inhibition in MMRd/MSS pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: the relevance of parallel testing.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2025Article
- MLH1 and MSH2 expression in endometrial cancer - microscopic and computer assessment of immunohistochemical method.Histology and histopathology · 2025Article
- Review
- Prevalence of Mismatch Repair Gene Defects by Means of Immuno-histochemistry Staining for MMR Proteins in Endometrial Cancer.Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology of India · 2025Article
- PD-1 and PD-L1 Expression in Endometrial Cancer: A Systematic Review of the Literature.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Endometrial Atypical Hyperplasia and Risk of Endometrial Cancer.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Clinical application of FIGO 2023 staging system of endometrial cancer in a Chinese cohort.BMC cancer · 2024Article
- Implementation of the ProMisE classifier and validation of its prognostic impact in Brazilian endometrial carcinomas.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Approximately 20-30% of endometrial carcinomas (EC) are characterized by mismatch repair (MMR) deficiency (dMMR) or microsatellite instability (MSI), and their testing has become part of the routine diagnosis. The aim of this study was to establish and compare the MMR status using various approaches. Immunohistochemistry (IHC), PCR-based MSI, and the detection of defects in the four key MMR genes (MLH1, PMS2, MSH2, and MSH6) via methylation-specific multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA) and targeted next-generation sequencing (NGS) were performed. MSH3 expression was also evaluated. A set of 126 early-stage EC samples were analyzed, 53.2% of which were dMMR and 46.8% of which were proficient MMR (pMMR) as determined using IHC, whereas 69.3% were classified as microsatellite stable, while 8.8% and 21.9% were classified MSI-low (MSI-L) and MSI-high (MSI-H), respectively. In total, 44.3% of the samples showed genetic or epigenetic alterations in one or more genes; MLH1 promoter methylation was the most common event. Although acceptable concordance was observed, there were overall discrepancies between the three testing approaches, mainly associated with the dMMR group. IHC had a better correlation with MMR genomic status than the MSI status determined using PCR. Further studies are needed to establish solid conclusions regarding the best MMR assessment technique for EC.
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.