MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013008781 · doi:10.1097/pgp.0b013e3181cd6552

High-Grade Endometrial Carcinoma: Serous and Grade 3 Endometrioid Carcinomas Have Different Immunophenotypes and Outcomes

2010· article· en· W2013008781 on OpenAlexaff
Abdulmohsen Alkushi, Martin Köbel, Steve E. Kalloger, C. Blake Gilks

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Gynecological Pathology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEndometrial and Cervical Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsVancouver Hospital and Health Sciences CentreUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouver General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPTENSerous fluidCarcinomaTensinClear cell carcinomaSerous carcinomaClear cellImmunohistochemistryMedicineEndometrial cancerUnivariate analysisImmunophenotypingPathologyEstrogen receptorOncologyInternal medicineCancer researchBiologyCancerBreast cancerAntigenOvarian cancerMultivariate analysisImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High-grade endometrial carcinomas are a heterogeneous group of tumors and include grade 3 endometrioid (EC-3), serous (SC), and clear cell carcinomas (CCC). There are conflicting data about the prognosis of these subtypes of high-grade endometrial carcinoma; this may be a result of lack of reproducibility in classifying tumor cell type. The purpose of this study was to examine differences in immunophenotype and outcome in a series of high-grade endometrial carcinomas, focusing on the comparison of EC-3 versus SC. We selected 180 endometrial carcinomas of SC, EC, or CCC type. No mixed carcinomas were included in the study. We chose the following immunohistochemical markers, estrogen receptor (ER), insulin-like growth factor 2 mRNA-binding protein 3 (IMP3), p16, p53, progesterone receptor (PR), and phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN) as being significantly differentially expressed in endometrial carcinoma subtypes. The tumors were stratified into 4 groups on the basis of their cell type and grade: EC grade 1 or 2, EC-3, SC, and CCC. Univariate survival analysis revealed significant differences in outcome between the 4 groups (P<0.0001), with significantly longer disease-specific survival for grade 1 or 2 EC versus EC-3 (P=0.0001), and EC-3 versus SC (P=0.0003). p16, PTEN, and IMP3 expression was observed more frequently in SC compared with EC-3 (P<0.0001, P=0.021, and P=0.031, respectively). These 3 markers showed the highest sensitivity and specificity in distinguishing between EC-3 and SC, with receiver operating characteristics area under the curve of 0.85, 0.69, and 0.71, respectively. ER and p53 approached but did not reach significance for differential expression in EC-3 versus SC (P=0.055 and P=0.068, respectively). A combination of p16 and PTEN predicts EC-3 versus SC with a sensitivity of 90.0% and specificity of 96.8%. p16 and PTEN can aid in distinguishing between EC-3 and SC of the endometrium, and are superior to ER, PR, and p53 for this purpose. EC-3 carcinomas have a significantly better prognosis than SC carcinomas of the endometrium.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.667

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.273 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations157
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Gynecological PathologySame topicEndometrial and Cervical Cancer TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207