Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 975

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Confirmation of ProMisE: A simple, genomics‐based clinical classifier for endometrial cancer

Open access
Talhouk, Aline, McConechy, Melissa K., Leung, Samuel, Yang, Winnie, Lum, Amy, Senz, Janine, Boyd, Niki, Pike, Judith, Anglesio, Michael, Kwon, Janice S., Karnezis, Anthony N., Huntsman, David G., Gilks, C. Blake, McAlpine, Jessica N.·2017·Cancer

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Classification of endometrial carcinomas (ECs) by morphologic features is irreproducible and imperfectly reflects tumor biology. The authors developed the Proactive Molecular Risk Classifier for Endometrial Cancer (ProMisE), a molecular classification system based on The Cancer Genome Atlas genomic subgroups, and sought to confirm both feasibility and prognostic ability in a new, large cohort of ECs. METHODS: Immunohistochemistry (IHC) for the presence or absence of mismatch repair (MMR) proteins (to identify MMR deficiency [MMR‐D]), sequencing for polymerase‐ɛ ( POLE ) exonuclease domain mutations ( POLE EDMs), and IHC for tumor protein 53 (p53) (wild type vs null/missense mutations; p53 wt and p53 abn, respectively) were performed on 319 new EC samples. Subgroups were characterized and assessed relative to outcomes. The prognostic ability of ProMisE was compared with that of current risk‐stratification systems (European Society of Medical Oncology [ESMO]). RESULTS: ProMisE decision‐tree classification achieved categorization of all cases and identified 4 prognostic subgroups with distinct overall, disease‐specific, and progression‐free survival ( P < .001). Tumors with POLE EDMs had the most favorable prognosis, and those with p53 abn the worst prognosis, and separation of the 2 middle survival curves (p53 wt and MMR‐D) was observed. There were no significant differences in survival between the ESMO low‐risk and intermediate‐risk groups. ProMisE improved the ability to discriminate outcomes compared with ESMO risk stratification. There was substantial overlap (89%) between the p53 abn and high‐risk ESMO subgroups; but, otherwise, there were no predictable associations between molecular and ESMO risk groups. CONCLUSIONS: Molecular classification of ECs can be achieved using clinically applicable methods and provides independent prognostic information beyond established clinicopathologic risk factors available at diagnosis. Consistent, biologically relevant categorization enables stratification for clinical trials and/or targeted therapy, identification of women who are at increased risk of having Lynch syndrome, and may guide clinical management. Cancer 2017;123:802–13. © 2016 American Cancer Society .

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/cncr.30496

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Research works printed but not linked: 29

  1. 10.3322/caac.21166 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Canadian Cancer Society's Advisory Committee on Cancer Statistics, 2014, Canadian Cancer Statistics 2014
  3. 10.1097/PAS.0b013e31827f576a · DOI · Paper page
  4. 10.1097/PAS.0b013e31828c63ed · DOI
  5. 10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70591-6 · DOI · Paper page
  6. 10.1038/bjc.2015.35 · DOI
  7. 10.1245/s10434-015-4924-2 · DOI
  8. 10.1038/bjc.2015.190 · DOI · Paper page
  9. 10.1038/nature12113 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Committee on the Review of Omics‐Based Tests for Predicting Patient Outcomes in Clinical Trials; Board on Health Care Services; Board on Health Sciences Policy; Institute of Medicine;MicheelCM NassSJ OmennGS eds.Evolution of Translational Omics: Lessons Learned and the Path Forward.Washington DC;National Academies Press;2012.
  11. 10.1093/annonc/mdt353 · DOI · Paper page
  12. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-15-2233 · DOI · Paper page
  13. 10.2307/2533277 · DOI · Paper page
  14. 10.1016/S0895-4356(01)00341-9 · DOI · Paper page
  15. EfronB TibshiraniR.Improvements on Cross‐Validation: The 632 + Bootstrap Method 2012. Available at:http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01621459.1997.10474007. Accessed May 22 2016. · DOI · Paper page
  16. 10.1038/modpathol.2013.102 · DOI · Paper page
  17. 10.1097/IGC.0b013e31821454f1 · doi:10.1097/igc.0b013e31821454f1
  18. 10.1097/PGP.0b013e3181cd6552 · DOI · Paper page
  19. 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2015.09.004 · DOI
  20. 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00130-0 · DOI · Paper page
  21. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-15-2878 · DOI · Paper page
  22. 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181b96ec6 · doi:10.1097/aog.0b013e3181b96ec6
  23. 10.1016/j.ygyno.2015.01.541 · DOI · Paper page
  24. 10.1038/modpathol.2014.143 · DOI · Paper page
  25. 10.1097/DCR.0000000000000084 · doi:10.1097/dcr.0000000000000084
  26. 10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.05.006 · DOI · Paper page
  27. 10.1016/j.ygyno.2016.07.090 · DOI · Paper page
  28. 10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.2151 · DOI · Paper page
  29. 10.1080/14712598.2016.1177018 · DOI

Cited by

See all 975

Metadata

Authors
Talhouk, A., McConechy, M. K., Leung, S., Yang, W., Lum, A., Senz, J., Boyd, N., Pike, J., Anglesio, M., Kwon, J. S., Karnezis, A. N., Huntsman, D. G., Gilks, C. B., & McAlpine, J. N.
Venue
Cancer
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017-01-06
Volume
123
Issue
5
Pages
802-813
ISSN
  • 0008-543X (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0142
OpenAlex
W2570729870
Cited by
975
References
3
FWCI
54.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Confirmation of ProMisE: A simple, genomics‐based clinical classifier for endometrial cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/cncr.30496
The paper
Talhouk, A., McConechy, M. K., Leung, S., Yang, W., Lum, A., Senz, J., Boyd, N., Pike, J., Anglesio, M., Kwon, J. S., Karnezis, A. N., Huntsman, D. G., Gilks, C. B., & McAlpine, J. N. (2017). Confirmation of ProMisE: A simple, genomics‐based clinical classifier for endometrial cancer. Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.30496

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.