Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 317

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 31 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Endometrial Carcinoma Diagnosis: Use of FIGO Grading and Genomic Subcategories in Clinical Practice: Recommendations of the International Society of Gynecological Pathologists

Open access
Soslow, Robert A., Tornos, Carmen, Park, Kay J., Malpica, Anais, Matias-Guiu, Xavier, Oliva, Esther, Parkash, Vinita, Carlson, Joseph, McCluggage, W. Glenn, Gilks, C. Blake·2019·International Journal of Gynecological Pathology

Abstract

In this review, we sought to address 2 important issues in the diagnosis of endometrial carcinoma: how to grade endometrial endometrioid carcinomas and how to incorporate the 4 genomic subcategories of endometrial carcinoma, as identified through The Cancer Genome Atlas, into clinical practice. The current International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics grading scheme provides prognostic information that can be used to guide the extent of surgery and use of adjuvant chemotherapy or radiation therapy. We recommend moving toward a binary scheme to grade endometrial endometrioid carcinomas by considering International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics defined grades 1 and 2 tumors as “low grade” and grade 3 tumors as “high grade.” The current evidence base does not support the use of a 3-tiered grading system, although this is considered standard by International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the College of American Pathologists. As for the 4 genomic subtypes of endometrial carcinoma (copy number low/p53 wild-type, copy number high/p53 abnormal, polymerase E mutant, and mismatch repair deficient), which only recently have been identified, there is accumulating evidence showing these categories can be reproducibly diagnosed and accurately assessed based on biopsy/curettage specimens as well as hysterectomy specimens. Furthermore, this subclassification system can be adapted for current clinical practice and is of prognostic significance independent of conventional variables used for risk assessment in patients with endometrial carcinoma (eg, stage). It is too soon to recommend the routine use of genomic classification in this setting; however, with further evidence, this system may become the basis for the subclassification of all endometrial carcinomas, supplanting (partially or completely) histotype, and grade. These recommendations were developed from the International Society of Gynecological Pathologists Endometrial Carcinoma project.

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 · 10.1097/pgp.0000000000000518

Cites

31 of 31 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 31 references

Cited by

See all 317

Metadata

Authors
Soslow, R. A., Tornos, C., Park, K. J., Malpica, A., Matias-Guiu, X., Oliva, E., Parkash, V., Carlson, J., McCluggage, W. G., & Gilks, C. B.
Venue
International Journal of Gynecological Pathology
Published
2019-01
Volume
38
Issue
Supplement 1
Pages
S64-S74
ISSN
0277-1691 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2908657103
Cited by
317
References
31
FWCI
25.58
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

How to cite

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

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Endometrial Carcinoma Diagnosis: Use of FIGO Grading and Genomic Subcategories in Clinical Practice: Recommendations of the International Society of Gynecological Pathologists. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/pgp.0000000000000518
The paper
Soslow, R. A., Tornos, C., Park, K. J., Malpica, A., Matias-Guiu, X., Oliva, E., Parkash, V., Carlson, J., McCluggage, W. G., & Gilks, C. B. (2019). Endometrial Carcinoma Diagnosis: Use of FIGO Grading and Genomic Subcategories in Clinical Practice: Recommendations of the International Society of Gynecological Pathologists. International Journal of Gynecological Pathology. https://doi.org/10.1097/pgp.0000000000000518

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.