The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Clinicopathological and molecular characterisation of ‘multiple‐classifier’ endometrial carcinomas
Open accessAbstract
Endometrial carcinoma (EC) molecular classification based on four molecular subclasses identified in The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) has gained relevance in recent years due to its prognostic utility and potential to predict benefit from adjuvant treatment. While most ECs can be classified based on a single classifier (POLE exonuclease domain mutations – POLE mut, MMR deficiency – MMRd, p53 abnormal – p53abn), a small but clinically relevant group of tumours harbour more than one molecular classifying feature and are referred to as ‘multiple‐classifier’ ECs. We aimed to describe the clinicopathological and molecular features of multiple‐classifier ECs with abnormal p53 (p53abn). Within a cohort of 3518 molecularly profiled ECs, 107 (3%) tumours displayed p53abn in addition to another classifier(s), including 64 with MMRd (MMRd–p53abn), 31 with POLE mut (POLE mut–p53abn), and 12 with all three aberrations (MMRd–POLE mut–p53abn). MMRd–p53abn ECs and POLE mut–p53abn ECs were mostly grade 3 endometrioid ECs, early stage, and frequently showed morphological features characteristic of MMRd or POLE mut ECs. 18/28 (60%) MMRd–p53abn ECs and 7/15 (46.7%) POLE mut–p53abn ECs showed subclonal p53 overexpression, suggesting that TP53 mutation was a secondary event acquired during tumour progression. Hierarchical clustering of TCGA ECs by single nucleotide variant (SNV) type and somatic copy number alterations (SCNAs) revealed that MMRd–p53abn tumours mostly clustered with single‐classifier MMRd tumours (20/23) rather than single‐classifier p53abn tumours (3/23), while POLE mut–p53abn tumours mostly clustered with single‐classifier POLE mut tumours (12/13) and seldom with single‐classifier p53abn tumours (1/13) (both p ≤ 0.001, chi‐squared test). Finally, the clinical outcome of patients with MMRd–p53abn and POLE mut–p53abn ECs [stage I 5‐year recurrence‐free survival (RFS) of 92.2% and 94.1%, respectively] was significantly different from single‐classifier p53abn EC (stage I RFS 70.8%, p = 0.024 and p = 0.050, respectively). Our results support the classification of MMRd–p53abn EC as MMRd and POLE mut–p53abn EC as POLE mut. © 2019 The Authors. The Journal of Pathology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
A method and server for predicting damaging missense mutations.
Adzhubei, I. A., Schmidt, S., Peshkin, L., Ramensky, V. E., Gerasimova, A., Bork, P., Kondrashov, A. S., & Sunyaev, S. R. (2010) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/nmeth0410-248 · Cited by 13,194
Signatures of mutational processes in human cancer
Initiative, A. P. C. G., Alexandrov, L. B., ICGC Breast Cancer Consortium, ICGC MMML-Seq Consortium, PedBrain, I., Nik-Zainal, S., Wedge, D. C., Aparicio, S. A. J. R., Behjati, S., Biankin, A. V., et al. (2013) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature12477 · Cited by 9,660
Mismatch repair deficiency predicts response of solid tumors to PD-1 blockade
Le, D. T., Durham, J. N., Smith, K. N., Wang, H., Bartlett, B. R., Aulakh, L. K., Lu, S., Kemberling, H., Wilt, C., Luber, B. S., et al. (2017) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aan6733 · Cited by 6,645
Kumar, P., Henikoff, S., & Ng, P. C. (2009) · Nature Protocols · doi:10.1038/nprot.2009.86 · Cited by 6,521
ClinVar: public archive of relationships among sequence variation and human phenotype
Landrum, M. J., Lee, J. M., Riley, G. R., Jang, W., Rubinstein, W. S., Church, D. M., & Maglott, D. R. (2014) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gkt1113 · Cited by 3,516
Self-citationPetitjean, A., Mathe, E., Kato, S., Ishioka, C., Tavtigian, S. V., Hainaut, P., & Olivier, M. (2007) · Human Mutation · doi:10.1002/humu.20495 · Cited by 1,598 · cited 1×
“TP53 mutations were assessed using the public databases COSMIC [20], ClinVar [21], and IARC TP53 mutations database [22], as well as the in silico”
MethodMutant p53 in Cancer: New Functions and Therapeutic Opportunities
Muller, P. A. J., & Vousden, K. H. (2014) · Cancer Cell · doi:10.1016/j.ccr.2014.01.021 · Cited by 1,545
Stelloo, E., Bosse, T., Nout, R. A., MacKay, H. J., Church, D. N., Nijman, H. W., Leary, A., Edmondson, R. J., Powell, M. E., Crosbie, E. J., et al. (2015) · Modern Pathology · doi:10.1038/modpathol.2015.43 · Cited by 486
Self-citation
Cited by
ESGO/ESTRO/ESP Guidelines for the Management of Patients with Endometrial Carcinoma
Concin, N., Matias-Guiu, X., Vergote, I., Cibula, D., Mirza, M. R., Marnitz, S., Ledermann, J., Bosse, T., Chargari, C., Fagotti, A., et al. (2021) · International Journal of Gynecological Cancer · doi:10.1136/ijgc-2020-002230 · Cited by 1,989
Self-citationLeón-Castillo, A., de Boer, S. M., Powell, M. E., Mileshkin, L. R., Mackay, H. J., Leary, A., Nijman, H. W., Singh, N., Pollock, P. M., Bessette, P., et al. (2020) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.20.00549 · Cited by 855
Self-citationInterpretation of somatic POLE mutations in endometrial carcinoma
León‐Castillo, A., Britton, H., McConechy, M. K., McAlpine, J. N., Nout, R., Kommoss, S., Brucker, S. Y., Carlson, J. W., Epstein, E., Rau, T. T., et al. (2020) · The Journal of Pathology · doi:10.1002/path.5372 · Cited by 409
Self-citationSingh, N., Piskorz, A. M., Bosse, T., Jimenez‐Linan, M., Rous, B., Brenton, J. D., Gilks, C. B., & Köbel, M. (2020) · The Journal of Pathology · doi:10.1002/path.5375 · Cited by 316
Self-citationCancer of the corpus uteri: 2021 update
Koskas, M., Amant, F., Mirza, M. R., & Creutzberg, C. L. (2021) · International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics · doi:10.1002/ijgo.13866 · Cited by 298
Metadata
- Authors
- León‐Castillo, A., Gilvazquez, E., Nout, R., Smit, V. T., McAlpine, J. N., McConechy, M., Kommoss, S., Brucker, S. Y., Carlson, J. W., Epstein, E., Rau, T. T., Soslow, R. A., Ganesan, R., Matias‐Guiu, X., Oliva, E., Harrison, B. T., Church, D. N., Gilks, C. B., & Bosse, T.
- Venue
- The Journal of Pathology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2020-01-12
- Volume
- 250
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 312-322
- ISSN
- 0022-3417 (ISSN-L)
- 1096-9896
- OpenAlex
- W2994917102
- Cited by
- 415
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 30.58
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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
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.