Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 415

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 access
León‐Castillo, Alicia, Gilvazquez, Ester, Nout, Remi, Smit, Vincent THBM, McAlpine, Jessica N, McConechy, Melissa, Kommoss, Stefan, Brucker, Sara Y, Carlson, Joseph W, Epstein, Elisabeth, Rau, Tilman T, Soslow, Robert A, Ganesan, Raji, Matias‐Guiu, Xavier, Oliva, Esther, Harrison, Beth T, Church, David N, Gilks, C Blake, Bosse, Tjalling·2020·The Journal of Pathology

Abstract

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/path.5373

Cites

8 of 8 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

Cited by

See all 415

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.