Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 332

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

Prognostic Significance of POLE Proofreading Mutations in Endometrial Cancer

Open access
Church, David N., Stelloo, Ellen, Nout, Remi A., Valtcheva, Nadejda, Depreeuw, Jeroen, ter Haar, Natalja, Noske, Aurelia, Amant, Frederic, Tomlinson, Ian P. M., Wild, Peter J., Lambrechts, Diether, Jürgenliemk-Schulz, Ina M., Jobsen, Jan J., Smit, Vincent T. H. B. M., Creutzberg, Carien L., Bosse, Tjalling·2015·JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Current risk stratification in endometrial cancer (EC) results in frequent over- and underuse of adjuvant therapy, and may be improved by novel biomarkers. We examined whether POLE proofreading mutations, recently reported in about 7% of ECs, predict prognosis. METHODS: We performed targeted POLE sequencing in ECs from the PORTEC-1 and -2 trials (n = 788), and analyzed clinical outcome according to POLE status. We combined these results with those from three additional series (n = 628) by meta-analysis to generate multivariable-adjusted, pooled hazard ratios (HRs) for recurrence-free survival (RFS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) of POLE-mutant ECs. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: POLE mutations were detected in 48 of 788 (6.1%) ECs from PORTEC-1 and-2 and were associated with high tumor grade (P < .001). Women with POLE-mutant ECs had fewer recurrences (6.2% vs 14.1%) and EC deaths (2.3% vs 9.7%), though, in the total PORTEC cohort, differences in RFS and CSS were not statistically significant (multivariable-adjusted HR = 0.43, 95% CI = 0.13 to 1.37, P = .15; HR = 0.19, 95% CI = 0.03 to 1.44, P = .11 respectively). However, of 109 grade 3 tumors, 0 of 15 POLE-mutant ECs recurred, compared with 29 of 94 (30.9%) POLE wild-type cancers; reflected in statistically significantly greater RFS (multivariable-adjusted HR = 0.11, 95% CI = 0.001 to 0.84, P = .03). In the additional series, there were no EC-related events in any of 33 POLE-mutant ECs, resulting in a multivariable-adjusted, pooled HR of 0.33 for RFS (95% CI = 0.12 to 0.91, P = .03) and 0.26 for CSS (95% CI = 0.06 to 1.08, P = .06). CONCLUSION: POLE proofreading mutations predict favorable EC prognosis, independently of other clinicopathological variables, with the greatest effect seen in high-grade tumors. This novel biomarker may help to reduce overtreatment in EC.

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 · 10.1093/jnci/dju402

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

Cited by

See all 332

Metadata

Authors
Church, D. N., Stelloo, E., Nout, R. A., Valtcheva, N., Depreeuw, J., ter Haar, N., Noske, A., Amant, F., Tomlinson, I. P. M., Wild, P. J., Lambrechts, D., Jürgenliemk-Schulz, I. M., Jobsen, J. J., Smit, V. T. H. B. M., Creutzberg, C. L., & Bosse, T.
Venue
JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
Published
2014-12-12
Volume
107
Issue
1
Pages
402-402
ISSN
  • 0027-8874 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2105
OpenAlex
W2110037976
Cited by
332
References
3
FWCI
26.37
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: Prognostic Significance of POLE Proofreading Mutations in Endometrial Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/jnci/dju402
The paper
Church, D. N., Stelloo, E., Nout, R. A., Valtcheva, N., Depreeuw, J., ter Haar, N., Noske, A., Amant, F., Tomlinson, I. P. M., Wild, P. J., Lambrechts, D., Jürgenliemk-Schulz, I. M., Jobsen, J. J., Smit, V. T. H. B. M., Creutzberg, C. L., & Bosse, T. (2015). Prognostic Significance of POLE Proofreading Mutations in Endometrial Cancer. JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/dju402

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.