Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 971

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A clinically applicable molecular-based classification for endometrial cancers

Open access
Talhouk, A, McConechy, M K, Leung, S, Li-Chang, H H, Kwon, J S, Melnyk, N, Yang, W, Senz, J, Boyd, N, Karnezis, A N, Huntsman, D G, Gilks, C B, McAlpine, J N·2015·British Journal of Cancer

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Classification of endometrial carcinomas (ECs) by morphologic features is inconsistent, and yields limited prognostic and predictive information. A new system for classification based on the molecular categories identified in The Cancer Genome Atlas is proposed. METHODS: Genomic data from the Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) support classification of endometrial carcinomas into four prognostically significant subgroups; we used the TCGA data set to develop surrogate assays that could replicate the TCGA classification, but without the need for the labor-intensive and cost-prohibitive genomic methodology. Combinations of the most relevant assays were carried forward and tested on a new independent cohort of 152 endometrial carcinoma cases, and molecular vs clinical risk group stratification was compared. RESULTS: Replication of TCGA survival curves was achieved with statistical significance using multiple different molecular classification models (16 total tested). Internal validation supported carrying forward a classifier based on the following components: mismatch repair protein immunohistochemistry, POLE mutational analysis and p53 immunohistochemistry as a surrogate for 'copy-number' status. The proposed molecular classifier was associated with clinical outcomes, as was stage, grade, lymph-vascular space invasion, nodal involvement and adjuvant treatment. In multivariable analysis both molecular classification and clinical risk groups were associated with outcomes, but differed greatly in composition of cases within each category, with half of POLE and mismatch repair loss subgroups residing within the clinically defined 'high-risk' group. Combining the molecular classifier with clinicopathologic features or risk groups provided the highest C-index for discrimination of outcome survival curves. CONCLUSIONS: Molecular classification of ECs can be achieved using clinically applicable methods on formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded samples, and provides independent prognostic information beyond established risk factors. This pragmatic molecular classification tool has potential to be used routinely in guiding treatment for individuals with endometrial carcinoma and in stratifying cases in future clinical trials.

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 · 10.1038/bjc.2015.190

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Cited by

See all 971

Metadata

Authors
Talhouk, A., McConechy, M. K., Leung, S., Li-Chang, H. H., Kwon, J. S., Melnyk, N., Yang, W., Senz, J., Boyd, N., Karnezis, A. N., Huntsman, D. G., Gilks, C. B., & McAlpine, J. N.
Venue
British Journal of Cancer
Published
2015-06-30
Volume
113
Issue
2
Pages
299-310
ISSN
  • 0007-0920 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-1827
OpenAlex
W1565078991
Cited by
971
References
2
FWCI
36.63
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

How to cite

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

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A clinically applicable molecular-based classification for endometrial cancers. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/bjc.2015.190
The paper
Talhouk, A., McConechy, M. K., Leung, S., Li-Chang, H. H., Kwon, J. S., Melnyk, N., Yang, W., Senz, J., Boyd, N., Karnezis, A. N., Huntsman, D. G., Gilks, C. B., & McAlpine, J. N. (2015). A clinically applicable molecular-based classification for endometrial cancers. British Journal of Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2015.190

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.