ReviewCancers2025
Molecular Prognosticators Guiding Fertility-Sparing Surgery in Early-Stage Endometrial Cancer: A Comprehensive Review.
Review in Cancers, 2025. 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEndometrial cancer (EC) is a common malignancy found among women. It is ranked as the 6th most common cancer among women and the 15th most common cancer globally. Increasing prevalence of several factors like obesity and other metabolic disorders have caused a growing trend of prevalence of endometrial cancer. The standard approach of treatment with excellent prognosis is total hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (TH/BSO). However, due to its drawback of complete infertility, newer approaches of fertility-sparing approaches are emerging to combat this challenge. Clinicians must choose the most suitable candidates for fertility-sparing surgery (FSS) using the present existing conventional criteria with regard to the patient's age, tumor characteristics, and fertility goals. The limitations using the conventional criteria can be eliminated by refining the criteria with molecular prognostic factors to ease the candidate selection process for FSS.
methodsRelevant literature regarding molecular subtypes, hormone therapy sensitivity, clinical assessment, and guidelines pertaining to fertility preservation in EC were retrieved from several electronic databases and articles addressing the role of molecular profiling in predicting patient response, guiding patient selection, and/or informing the development of therapies for fertility preservation in early-stage EC, particularly in women of reproductive age were included. Primary focus was on areas of consensus, emerging trends, and evidence gaps that warrant further investigation. This review will assess the integration of molecular prognostic factors to refine the patient selection criteria and guide FSS in early-stage EC. We will present existing clinical criteria, ongoing clinical trials, limitations, and the advantages of integrating molecular data on patient selection, treatment safety, and fertility outcomes.
resultsFour distinct molecular subtypes have been classified which includes POLE-mut, MMR-d, p53-abn and NSMP. POLE-mut subtype had excellent prognosis with >95% patients achieving complete remission with <2% recurrence rate followed by MMRd and NSMP with intermediate prognosis and lastly p53-abn with poor prognosis of 60-70% achieving complete remission and 30-40% having recurrence. The data highlights the clinical value of molecular classification in selecting appropriate candidates for fertility sparing surgery (FSS).
conclusionsThere is a lack of integration of molecular subtypes for clinicians to choose candidates for FSS and this gap should be addressed. Further research must be performed to follow personalized medicine to refine their treatment plan.
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.