Screening for Lynch syndrome in unselected women with endometrial cancer.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
5508 Background: Endometrial cancer (EC) is often the sentinel cancer in women with Lynch Syndrome (LS) however it is often not recognized in this population. A prospective cohort study comparing family history, immunohistochemistry (IHC) for mismatch repair (MMR) proteins, and tumour morphology to germline mutation status in MMR genes was performed in unselected women with EC to determine which screening strategy was superior in identifying women with LS. Methods: All women with newly diagnosed EC between July 2010 and June 2011 were asked to participate in the prospective screening protocol for LS which included completing an extended family history questionnaire (eFHQ), tumor assessment for LS-associated morphologic features and IHC as well as germline mutation testing. Results: 119 (n = 182, 65%) consented to the study. The median age was 61 (26-91), 96 (81%) stage I, and 42 (35%) had high risk histology. There were 6 (7.4%, n = 81) women that were germline mutation positive (MLH1 N=3; MSH6 n = 2; MSH2 n =1), representing a mutation positive rate of at least 5% in this cohort (6/119). All 3 MLH1 mutation positive women had low grade histology while mutations in MSH2/6 were exclusively found in women with high risk histology. Two of the six mutation positive women were not identified by family history. Mutation positivity was higher in women under age 50 (23%; 5/22) compared to women > age 50 (1%; 1/97)( (p = 0.0008). LS-morphologic features were found in 58 (59%, n = 98) women. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of the LS-associated features in predicting LS mutation status was 100%, 42.6%, 7.9% and 100% compared to IHC which was 100%, 76%, 18% and 100% and eFHQ which was 67%, 84%, 27%, 97%. Conclusions: In this unselected population of women with newly diagnosed EC the germline mutation rate for LS was 2-3 times that has previously been reported. Previously described LS-associated morphologic features were not specific to germline mutation status and family history missed one third of women with LS. IHC was the best strategy to identify women with EC who should undergo germline mutation testing.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".