Prognostic values of molecular subtypes and SWI/SNF protein expression in de‐differentiated/undifferentiated endometrial carcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Classification and risk stratification of endometrial carcinoma (EC) has transitioned from histopathological features to molecular classification, e.g. the ProMisE classifier, identifying four prognostic subtypes: POLE mutant (POLEmut) with almost no recurrence or disease-specific death events, mismatch repair deficient (MMRd) and no specific molecular profile (NSMP), with intermediate outcome and p53 abnormal (p53abn) with poor outcomes. However, the applicability of molecular classification is unclear in rare but aggressive histotypes of EC, e.g. de-differentiated and undifferentiated endometrial cancers (DD/UDEC). Here, we aim to assembled a cohort of DD/UDEC from a single institution and analysed the prognostic significance of ProMisE molecular subtypes and the expression of SWItch/sucrose non-fermentable (SWI/SNF) chromatin remodelling complex members, previously implicated in the pathogenesis of DD/UDEC. METHODS AND RESULTS: We accrued 88 DD/UDEC cases, assessed POLE status by Sanger sequencing and performed immunohistochemistry for p53, mismatch repair and SWI/SNF proteins on the tissue microarrays assembled. Assignment of molecular subtypes was possible in 80 tumours; POLE sequencing failed in the remaining eight cases. There were 12 (15%) POLEmut, 44 (55%) MMRd, 14 (17.5%) p53abn and 10 (12.5%) NSMP DD/UDEC. POLEmut DD/UDECs had excellent outcomes, but the other three molecular subtypes all had poor outcomes, with no significant differences among them. The loss of one or more SWI/SNF proteins [AT-rich interactive domain-containing protein 1A (ARID1A), ARID1B, SWI/SNF-related, matrix-associated, actin-dependent regulator of chromatin, subfamily A, member 4 (SMARCA4), SMARCA2], observed in 66% (55 of 83) cases, was not of prognostic significance. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that all molecular subtypes of DD/UDEC except POLEmut behave in an aggressive fashion. Further study is needed to determine whether these molecular alterations can be targeted with adjuvant therapy, in order to improve outcomes of patients with DD/UDEC.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".