4.7 Article

One-stop molecular classification of endometrial carcinoma using comprehensive next-generation sequencing

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 151, 期 11, 页码 1969-1977

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ijc.34241

关键词

disease-free survival; endometrial carcinoma; molecular classification; next-generation sequencing; prognosis stratification

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates the feasibility of molecular classification using comprehensive next-generation sequencing techniques and its relationship with survival outcomes in patients with endometrial cancer. The results show that comprehensive next-generation sequencing is a reliable method for stratifying the prognosis of endometrial cancer and has the potential to guide the treatment of patients in clinical practice.
This study aims to investigate the feasibility of molecular classification using only comprehensive next-generation sequencing-based techniques and its relationship with survival outcomes in patients with endometrial cancer. Paired tumor-normal sequencing data of 1021 cancer-related genes using tumor tissues or peripheral blood samples and clinical data were retrospectively collected from a cohort of endometrial cancers. The microsatellite instability status was inferred using the MSIsensor (v0.5) with a cut-off of 8%. Sixty patients were classified into four groups: POLEMUT group (13.3%), MSI-H group (20%), TP53(WT) group (45%) and TP53(MUT) group (21.7%). Patients within TP53(MUT) group were more common in serous carcinoma compared to endometrioid carcinoma (P = .0098). TP53WT was significantly correlated with early stage and low grade. TP53(MUT) group was associated with significantly worse DFS compared to MSI-H group and TP53(WT) group (P = .014 and .004, respectively). Comprehensive next-generation sequencing is a reliable and simple method to stratify the prognosis of endometrial carcinoma. It can be potentially used to guide treatment of patients with endometrial cancer in routine practice.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据