br References br Kandoth C Schultz N Cherniack AD
1. Kandoth C, Schultz N, Cherniack AD, et al. the Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network. Integrated genomic charac-terization of endometrial carcinoma. Nature. 2013;497:67–73.
2. Hussein YR, Soslow RA. Molecular insights into the classification of high-grade endometrial carcinoma. Gyneco Pathology. 2018;50:151–161.
5. Lax SF, Kendall B, Tashiro H, et al. The frequency of p53, K-ras mutations, and microsatellite instability differs in uter-ine endometrioid and serous carcinoma: evidence of distinct molecular genetic pathways. Cancer. 2000;88:814–824.
8. Bansal N, Yendluri V, Wenham RM. The AS1517499 of endometrial cancers and the implications for patho-genesis, classification, and targeted therapies. Cancer Control. 2009;16:8–13.
9. Alvarez T, Miller E, Duska L, et al. Molecular profile of grade 3 endometrioid endometrial carcinoma: is it a type I or type II endometrial carcinoma? Am J Surg Pathol. 2012;36:753–761.
10. Cirisano Jr FD, Robboy SJ, Dodge RK, et al. The outcome of stage I–II clinically and surgically staged papillary serous and clear cell endometrial cancers when compared with endometrioid carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 2000;77:55–65.
11. Halperin R, Zehavi S, Langer R, et al. Uterine papillary serous carcinoma (pure and mixed type) compared with moderately and poorly differentiated endometrioid carcinoma: a clinicopathologic study. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2002;23:300–304.
12. Alektiar KM, McKee A, Lin O, et al. Is there a difference in outcome between stage I–II endometrial cancer of papil-lary serous/clear cell and endometrioid FIGO grade 3 cancer? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002;54:79–85.
14. Soslow RA, Bissonnette JP, Wilton A, et al. Clinicopathologic analysis of 187 high-grade endometrial carcino-mas of different histologic subtypes: similar outcomes belie distinctive biologic differences. Am J Surg Pathol. 2007;31:979–987.
15. Voss MA, Ganesan R, Ludeman L, et al. Should grade 3 endometrioid endometrial carcinoma be considered a type 2 cancer: a clinical and pathological evaluation. Gynecol Oncol. 2012;124:15–20.
16. Van Driel W, Creutzberg C, Grimbergen C, et al.: National guideline ‘endometrial cancer’. Approved by the Dutch society of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (NVOG) in. February February 2011;2011.
17. Cooke EW, Pappas L, Gaffney DK. Does the revised international federation of gynecology and obstetrics staging system for endometrial cancer lead to increased discrimination in patient outcomes. Cancer. 2011;117:4231–4237.
18. Hinshaw HD, Smith A, Rungruang B, et al. The risk of subsequent malignancies in women with uterine papillary serous or clear cell endometrial cancers. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2013;23:1044–1049.
19. Creutzberg CL, van Putten WL, Koper PC, et al. Surgery and postoperative radiotherapy versus surgery alone for patients with, stage-1 endometrial carcinoma: multicentre randomised trial. PORTEC Study Group. Post operative radiation therapy in endometrial carcinoma. Lancet. 2000;355:1404–1411.
20. Sert F, Yilmaz U, Alanyali S, et al. Evaluation of unusual and highly aggressive variant of endometrium cancer: nonen-dometrioid endometrium carcinoma of the uterus. Tumori. 2017;103:551–556.
21. Hamilton CA, Cheung MK, Osann K, et al. Uterine papillary serous and clear cell carcinomas predict for poorer sur-vival compared to grade 3 endometrioid corpus cancers. Br J Cancer. 2006;94:642–646.
22. Cirisano Jr FD, Robboy SJ, Dodge RK, et al. The outcome of stage I–II clinically and surgically staged papillary serous and clear cell endometrial cancers when compared with endometrioid carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 2000;77:55–65.
25. McMeekin DS, Filiaci VL, Thigpen JT, et al. Gynecologic Oncology Group study. The relationship between histology and outcome in advanced and recurrent endometrial cancer patients participating in first-line chemotherapy trials: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Gynecol Oncol. 2007;106:16–22.