Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39052171›Full record

ArticleJournal of cancer research and clinical oncology2024

Determination of endometrial cancer molecular subtypes using a whole exome-sequencing based single-method approach.

Alexander Mustea, Damian J Ralser, Eva K Egger, Ulrike Ziehm, Sonia Vivas, Stephan Brock, David Jackson, Mateja Condic, Marc-A Rauschendorf, Patrick Würfel and 9 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

19 authors.

Alexander MusteaDepartment of Gynecology and Gynecological Oncology, University Hospital Bonn, Venusberg-Campus 1, Bonn, 53127, Germany.
Damian J RalserDepartment of Gynecology and Gynecological Oncology, University Hospital Bonn, Venusberg-Campus 1, Bonn, 53127, Germany. damian.ralser@ukbonn.de.
Eva K EggerDepartment of Gynecology and Gynecological Oncology, University Hospital Bonn, Venusberg-Campus 1, Bonn, 53127, Germany.
Ulrike ZiehmMolecular Health, Kurfuersten-Anlage 21, Heidelberg, 69115, Germany.
Sonia VivasMolecular Health, Kurfuersten-Anlage 21, Heidelberg, 69115, Germany.
Stephan BrockMolecular Health, Kurfuersten-Anlage 21, Heidelberg, 69115, Germany.
David JacksonMolecular Health, Kurfuersten-Anlage 21, Heidelberg, 69115, Germany.
Mateja CondicDepartment of Gynecology and Gynecological Oncology, University Hospital Bonn, Venusberg-Campus 1, Bonn, 53127, Germany.
Marc-A RauschendorfMolecular Health, Kurfuersten-Anlage 21, Heidelberg, 69115, Germany.
Patrick WürfelDepartment of Surgery, DRK Kliniken Berlin Köpenick, Berlin, Germany.
Frank DombrowskiInstitute of Pathology, University Medicine Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany.
Lucia A OttenDepartment of Gynecology and Gynecological Oncology, University Hospital Bonn, Venusberg-Campus 1, Bonn, 53127, Germany.
Pengming SunLaboratory of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Gynecology, Fujian Maternity and Child Health Hospital, Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University, No, 18 Daoshan Road, Fuzhou, 350001, China.
Anna LaibDr. Senckenberg Institute of Pathology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Miguel Cubas CordovaMolecular Health, Kurfuersten-Anlage 21, Heidelberg, 69115, Germany.
Rahel HartmannMolecular Health, Kurfuersten-Anlage 21, Heidelberg, 69115, Germany.
Martin A SteinMolecular Health, Kurfuersten-Anlage 21, Heidelberg, 69115, Germany.
Dominique KoensgenDepartment of Gynecology and Gynecological Oncology, University Hospital Bonn, Venusberg-Campus 1, Bonn, 53127, Germany.
Matthias B StopeDepartment of Gynecology and Gynecological Oncology, University Hospital Bonn, Venusberg-Campus 1, Bonn, 53127, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimEndometrial cancer (EC) is heterogeneous with respect to epidemiology, clinical course, histopathology and tumor biology. Recently, The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) network has identified four molecular subtypes with distinct clinical courses by an integrated multi-omics approach. These subtypes are of critical importance in the clinical management of EC. However, determination of TCGA molecular subtypes requires a complex methodological approach that is resource intensive and difficult to implement in diagnostic routine procedures. In this context, Talhouk et al. reported the precise determination of modified subtypes based on molecular surrogates obtained by a two-method approach comprising immunohistochemistry and DNA-sequence analysis (Proactive Molecular Risk Classifier for Endometrial Cancer; ProMisE). In this study, we aimed to identify EC molecular subtypes in analogy to TCGA and ProMisE applying an innovative whole exome-sequencing (WES) based single-method approach.

methodsWES was performed in a cohort comprising N = 114 EC patients. WES data were analyzed using the oncology treatment decision support software MH Guide (Molecular Health, Heidelberg, Germany) and EC molecular subtypes in analogy to TCGA and ProMisE were determined. Results from both classifications were compared regarding their prognostic values using overall survival and progression-free survival analyses.

resultsApplying a single-method WES-approach, EC molecular subtypes analogue to TCGA and ProMisE were identified in the study cohort. The surrogate marker-analogue classification precisely identified high-risk and low-risk EC, whereas the TCGA-analogue classification failed to obtain significant prognostic values in this regard.

conclusionOur data demonstrate that determination of EC molecular subtypes analogue to TCGA and ProMisE is feasible by using a single-method WES approach. Within our EC cohort, prognostic implications were only reliably provided by applying the surrogate marker-analogue approach. Designation of molecular subtypes in EC will be increasingly important in routine clinical practice. Thus, the single-method WES approach provides an important simple tool to tailor therapeutic decisions in EC.

Indexed as

Endometrial NeoplasmsExome SequencingAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBiomarkers, TumorFemaleHumansMiddle AgedPrognosisBiomarkers, TumorEndometrial cancerMolecular subtypesMolecular surrogate markersNext generation-sequencing diagnosticsTCGA

Identifiers

PMID39052171
PMCPMC11272736

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.