Endometrial Carcinomas with <i>POLE</i> Exonuclease Domain Mutations Have a Favorable Prognosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to confirm the prognostic significance of POLE exonuclease domain mutations (EDM) in endometrial carcinoma patients. In addition, the effect of treatment on POLE-mutated tumors was assessed. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: A retrospective patient cohort of 496 endometrial carcinoma patients was identified for targeted sequencing of the POLE exonuclease domain, yielding 406 evaluable tumors. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to determine the effect of POLE mutation status on progression-free survival (PFS), disease-specific survival (DSS), and overall survival (OS). Combining results from eight studies in a meta-analysis, we computed pooled HR for PFS, DSS, and OS. RESULTS: POLE EDMs were identified in 39 of 406 (9.6%) endometrial carcinomas. Women with POLE-mutated endometrial carcinomas were younger, with stage I (92%) tumors, grade 3 (62%), endometrioid histology (82%), and frequent (49%) lymphovascular invasion. In univariable analysis, POLE-mutated endometrial carcinomas had significantly improved outcomes compared with patients with no EDMs for PFS, DSS, and OS. In multivariable analysis, POLE EDMs were only significantly associated with improved PFS. The effect of adjuvant treatment on POLE-mutated cases could not be determined conclusively; however, both treated and untreated patients with POLE EDMs had good outcomes. Meta-analysis revealed an association between POLE EDMs and improved PFS and DSS with pooled HRs 0.34 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.15-0.73] and 0.35 (95% CI, 0.13-0.92), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: POLE EDMs are prognostic markers associated with excellent outcomes for endometrial carcinoma patients. Further investigation is needed to conclusively determine if treatment is necessary for this group of women. Clin Cancer Res; 22(12); 2865-73. ©2016 AACR.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".