7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      FIGO staging of endometrial cancer: 2023

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references81

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Mismatch repair deficiency predicts response of solid tumors to PD-1 blockade

          The genomes of cancers deficient in mismatch repair contain exceptionally high numbers of somatic mutations. In a proof-of-concept study, we previously showed that colorectal cancers with mismatch repair deficiency were sensitive to immune checkpoint blockade with antibodies to programmed death receptor-1 (PD-1). We have now expanded this study to evaluate the efficacy of PD-1 blockade in patients with advanced mismatch repair-deficient cancers across 12 different tumor types. Objective radiographic responses were observed in 53% of patients, and complete responses were achieved in 21% of patients. Responses were durable, with median progression-free survival and overall survival still not reached. Functional analysis in a responding patient demonstrated rapid in vivo expansion of neoantigen-specific T cell clones that were reactive to mutant neopeptides found in the tumor. These data support the hypothesis that the large proportion of mutant neoantigens in mismatch repair-deficient cancers make them sensitive to immune checkpoint blockade, regardless of the cancers' tissue of origin.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The Eighth Edition AJCC Cancer Staging Manual: Continuing to build a bridge from a population-based to a more "personalized" approach to cancer staging.

            The American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging manual has become the benchmark for classifying patients with cancer, defining prognosis, and determining the best treatment approaches. Many view the primary role of the tumor, lymph node, metastasis (TNM) system as that of a standardized classification system for evaluating cancer at a population level in terms of the extent of disease, both at initial presentation and after surgical treatment, and the overall impact of improvements in cancer treatment. The rapid evolution of knowledge in cancer biology and the discovery and validation of biologic factors that predict cancer outcome and response to treatment with better accuracy have led some cancer experts to question the utility of a TNM-based approach in clinical care at an individualized patient level. In the Eighth Edition of the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, the goal of including relevant, nonanatomic (including molecular) factors has been foremost, although changes are made only when there is strong evidence for inclusion. The editorial board viewed this iteration as a proactive effort to continue to build the important bridge from a "population-based" to a more "personalized" approach to patient classification, one that forms the conceptual framework and foundation of cancer staging in the era of precision molecular oncology. The AJCC promulgates best staging practices through each new edition in an effort to provide cancer care providers with a powerful, knowledge-based resource for the battle against cancer. In this commentary, the authors highlight the overall organizational and structural changes as well as "what's new" in the Eighth Edition. It is hoped that this information will provide the reader with a better understanding of the rationale behind the aggregate proposed changes and the exciting developments in the upcoming edition. CA Cancer J Clin 2017;67:93-99. © 2017 American Cancer Society.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Integrated Genomic Characterization of Endometrial Carcinoma

              Summary We performed an integrated genomic, transcriptomic, and proteomic characterization of 373 endometrial carcinomas using array- and sequencing-based technologies. Uterine serous tumors and ~25% of high-grade endometrioid tumors have extensive copy number alterations, few DNA methylation changes, low ER/PR levels, and frequent TP53 mutations. Most endometrioid tumors have few copy number alterations or TP53 mutations but frequent mutations in PTEN, CTNNB1, PIK3CA, ARID1A, KRAS and novel mutations in the SWI/SNF gene ARID5B. A subset of endometrioid tumors we identified had a dramatically increased transversion mutation frequency, and newly identified hotspot mutations in POLE. Our results classified endometrial cancers into four categories: POLE ultramutated, microsatellite instability hypermutated, copy number low, and copy number high. Uterine serous carcinomas share genomic features with ovarian serous and basal-like breast carcinomas. We demonstrated that the genomic features of endometrial carcinomas permit a reclassification that may impact post-surgical adjuvant treatment for women with aggressive tumors.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics
                Intl J Gynecology & Obste
                Wiley
                0020-7292
                1879-3479
                June 20 2023
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford Women's Cancer Center Stanford Cancer Institute Stanford California USA
                [2 ] Department of Pathology, Hospital U de Bellvitge and Hospital U Arnau de Vilanova Universities of Lleida and Barcelona, Institut de Recerca Biomèdica de Lleida, Instituto de Investigación Biomédica de Bellvitge, Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Cáncer Barcelona Spain
                [3 ] Department of Radiation Oncology Leiden University Medical Center Leiden The Netherlands
                [4 ] Gynaecological Oncology, Department of Surgery and Cancer Imperial College London London UK
                [5 ] Department of Radiation Oncology University of Utah Salt Lake City Utah USA
                [6 ] Oxford Gynaecological Cancer Centre Churchill Hospital Oxford UK
                [7 ] Department of Gynaecological Cancer Oslo University Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo Oslo Norway
                [8 ] Division of Gynecologic Oncology Washington University School of Medicine St. Louis Missouri USA
                [9 ] Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology Medical University of Innsbruck Innsbruck Austria
                [10 ] Kliniken Essen‐Mitte Essen Germany
                Article
                10.1002/ijgo.14923
                37337978
                2adc4d37-9870-4d67-b75f-df7b6bf74e54
                © 2023

                http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article