Research Radartracking 1,762 published studies · 471 human · 11 safety signals · 58 clinical trials · 44 cancer pages · updated Sep 2026Open the Research Map →

Endometrioid Carcinoma

A plain-English summary of the published research on Endometrioid Carcinoma, reviewed and approved by our editors — not a hand-curated clinical overview.

Research summary · reviewed
Educational only: This page is not medical advice. Coordinate decisions with your oncology team.

Reviewed Jun 2026 · OncoForge editorial · How we review →

AI extractedhuman reviewedsources checkedretractions suppressed· last updated Jun 2026

Evidence at a glanceHuman · observationalMixed results⚠ Studies disagree
80 published studies that name Endometrioid Carcinoma31 human studies approved & graded (trial, observational, or meta-analysis)41 human clinical studies in the Endometrioid Carcinoma corpus685 source documents in the Endometrioid Carcinoma corpus

last checked June 19, 2026

Why this grade?

Human · observationalHuman observational evidence only — no trials.

Computed deterministically from the studies’ types and reported outcomes — not written by AI, and not a claim that anything works.

What the guidelines say

NCI PDQESMONCCNASCO

We link the authoritative guidelines rather than reproduce them. Below, the treatments on this page are split into standard care, guideline or regulatory options, supportive care, and studied but not standard so established care is not mixed with experimental or supportive items.

Studied, not standard - investigational
  • progestins
  • carboplatin
  • paclitaxel
  • cisplatin
  • sulfasalazine

Read the guidelines

Cancer-specific deep links aren’t curated yet — these search the authoritative sources for Endometrioid Carcinoma.

Treatment map: Endometrioid Carcinoma

Open as a full page →

Standard care plus every compound studied in the literature (each cited) and graded by evidence, organized by clinical readiness. A category, not a verdict that anything works — confirm anything here with your oncology team.

5
Interventions
0
Standard of care
3
Tested in people
2
Lab / animal
0
Named in lit.
3
Classes
Standard of care (0) Guideline option (0) Tested in people (3) Lab / animal only (2) Named in the literature (0)

Tested in people, by trial phase: phase not reported ×3

Clinical evidence
Preclinical evidence
Standard of care
Guideline option
Tested in people
Lab / animal only
Named in the literature
Chemotherapy
2
1
Hormonal therapy
1
Repurposed drugs
1

Columns group into clinical evidence (used in, or tested on, people) and preclinical evidence (lab/animal, or only named in the literature). Cell = number of interventions; a dashed cell means none recorded there.

Investigational & adjunct compounds — detail (5)
Meta-analysis (1)
progestins

"Tested in people" rows show the highest trial phase found in that compound's cited human studies (Phase I–IV; "phase not reported" = a human study with no phase tag). "Studied" = named in the cited literature for this cancer. "FDA ✓" = FDA-approved for this cancer; "off-label" = an FDA-approved drug used outside its approved indications (per openFDA). Not a claim that anything works.

Reported figures

Get cited updates on Endometrioid Carcinoma
A monthly email when the research changes — $10/mo. Manage follows
Follow Endometrioid Carcinoma

Snapshot

The essentials in ~60 seconds — every line is drawn from the cited sources below.

What it is
Endometrioid carcinoma is an endometrial cancer that can be classified into four molecular prognostic subgroups: POLE, microsatellite‑instable (MSI), copy‑number‑high (CNH), and copy‑number‑low (CNL). [1]
Survival
Prognosis differs by molecular subgroup: compared with p53‑wild‑type, pooled hazard ratios for overall survival were p53‑mutated 2.505, MSI 1.287, and POLE‑mutated 0.481; mismatch repair–deficient (MMRd) clear cell cases seem to have a favorable prognosis and might be grouped with MMRd endometrioid carcinoma for management. [2][3]
Standard treatment
Conservative management of endometrial hyperplasia without atypia, atypical endometrial hyperplasia (AH/EIN), and early endometrioid carcinoma is based on progestins. [4]
Key test
Molecular classification (POLE, MSI/MMRd, copy‑number‑high, copy‑number‑low) is a key diagnostic biomarker because its prevalence does not align with FIGO grade and will affect risk stratification. [1][2]
Biggest challenge
Current FIGO‑grade based risk stratification does not align with TCGA molecular subgroups, so integrating molecular signatures (and histotype) into risk classification is a main challenge. [1][2]

Ask about Endometrioid Carcinoma

Answers come only from the cited sources on this page — with the supporting evidence shown. If the sources here don't cover your question, it will say so. Educational information, not medical advice.

Key numbers & factors

Risk factors

  • increases riskAtypical polypoid adenomyoma (APA)may be a precursor of 'copy number-low,' CTNNB1‑mutant endometrial cancers. [5]

Biomarkers

  • POLE mutation · defines the POLE TCGA prognostic subgroup associated with lower overall‑survival hazard (POLEmt HR 0.481). [2]
  • MSI / MMR deficiencyActionableidentifies the MSI/MMRd TCGA subgroup and may influence prognosis and grouping for management (MMRd clear cell may be managed with MMRd endometrioid). [2][3]
  • p53 mutation · identifies the p53‑mutated / copy‑number‑high subgroup associated with worse overall‑survival hazard (p53mt HR 2.505). [2]
  • CTNNB1 mutation · associated with copy‑number‑low endometrial cancers and suggested by APA as a possible precursor. [5]
  • Recurrent gene fusions (ESR1‑NCOA2/3, GREB1‑NCOA1/2, GREB1‑CTNNB1) · reported in uterine tumors resembling ovarian sex cord tumors (UTROSCT). [6]

6 sections — tap any heading to expand its cited detail. Key points are above.

OverviewThe Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) defines four molecular prognostic subgroups of endometrial carcinoma: POLE, microsatellite-instable (MSI), copy-number-high (CNH), and copy-number-low (CNL). A systematic review found that the prevalence of these TCGA molecular subgroups does not align with FIGO grade, indicating that current risk stratification of endometrial carcinoma will be heavily affected by molecular signature.2 points
  • The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) demonstrated four molecular prognostic subgroups for endometrial carcinoma: POLE, microsatellite-instable (MSI), copy-number-high (CNH), and copy-number-low (CNL). [1]
  • A systematic review found that the prevalence of TCGA molecular subgroups does not align with FIGO grade, suggesting that current risk stratification of endometrial carcinoma will be heavily affected by molecular signature. [1]
Key biomarkersCertain precursor lesions and rare uterine tumor types associated with endometrioid carcinoma have characteristic molecular features. Atypical polypoid adenomyoma shows prominent hormone-receptor expression and nuclear β-catenin and has been suggested as a precursor of copy number-low, CTNNB1‑mutant endometrial cancers; uterine tumors resembling ovarian sex cord tumors have recurrent gene fusions.2 points
  • Atypical polypoid adenomyoma (APA) glands appear analogous to atypical endometrial hyperplasia and their prominent hormone-receptor expression and nuclear β-catenin suggest APA may be a precursor of 'copy number-low,' CTNNB1-mutant endometrial cancers. [5]
  • Uterine tumor resembling ovarian sex cord tumors (UTROSCT) have been reported to contain recurrent gene fusions including ESR1-NCOA2/3, GREB1-NCOA1/2 and GREB1-CTNNB1. [6]
Standard management1 point
  • Conservative treatment of endometrial hyperplasia without atypia (HWA), atypical endometrial hyperplasia (AH/EIN) and early endometrioid carcinoma (EEC) is based on progestins. [4]
Treatments & compounds studied1 treatment

Hormonal therapy

  • progestins: Conservative treatment of HWA, AH/EIN and early endometrioid carcinoma is based on progestins. [4]
    Overall association of diabetes mellitus with treatment outcome 1.2, p=0.62 vs patients without diabetes mellitus
    Source quote
    • Overall, diabetes mellitus was not associated with outcome of treatment (OR = 1.20; p = .62).
PrognosisTCGA-defined molecular subgroups of endometrioid carcinoma show different pooled hazard ratios for overall survival relative to the p53-wild-type subgroup (p53mt 2.505; MSI 1.287; POLEmt 0.481). Mismatch repair–deficient (MMRd) clear cell endometrial carcinomas appear to have a favorable prognosis and "might be lumped together with MMRd endometrioid carcinoma for management purpose."2 points

Key figures

Survival & outcomes
OutcomeValue95% CI
five-year overall survival in MMRd CCC95.7%
Prognostic factors
FactorEffectHR (95% CI)p
HR for overall survival in p53mt (endometrioid)▲ worse2.505
hazard of death MMRd vs p53abn vs p53abn group▼ better0.062= 0.007
HR for overall survival in POLEmt (endometrioid)▼ better0.481
HR for overall survival in MSI (endometrioid)▲ worse1.287
Source quotes
  • Five-year OS was 95.7 ± 4.3% in the MMRd group, 48.4 ± 8.4% months in the p53wt group and 40.6 ± 10.4% in the p53abn group.
  • In the p53mt subgroup, pooled HRs for OS were 4.322 (all-histotypes), 2.505 (endometrioid), and 4.937 (non-endometrioid).
  • The hazard of death was significantly lower in the MMRd group than in the p53abn group (HR = 0.062; p = 0.007), while it did not significantly differ between the p53wt and the p53abn group (HR = 0.673; p = 0.222).
  • In the POLEmt subgroup, pooled HRs were 0.763 (all-histotypes), 0.481 (endometrioid), and 2.634 (non-endometrioid).
  • In the MSI subgroup, pooled HRs were 1.965 (all-histotypes), 1.287 (endometrioid), and 6.361 (non-endometrioid).
  • In endometrioid carcinomas (TCGA molecular subgroups), pooled hazard ratios for overall survival compared with the p53-wild-type subgroup were: p53-mutated (p53mt) 2.505; MSI (microsatellite-instability) 1.287; and POLE-mutated (POLEmt) 0.481. [2]
  • Mismatch repair–deficient (MMRd) clear cell endometrial carcinomas seem to have a favorable prognosis and "might be lumped together with MMRd endometrioid carcinoma for management purpose." [3]
What we don't know yet1 point
  • Authors have recommended that histotype should be integrated with molecular characterization for risk stratification of patients in the future. [2]

Common questions

What is Endometrioid Carcinoma?

The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) defines four molecular prognostic subgroups of endometrial carcinoma: POLE, microsatellite-instable (MSI), copy-number-high (CNH), and copy-number-low (CNL). A systematic review found that the prevalence of these TCGA molecular subgroups does not align with FIGO grade, indicating that current risk stratification of endometrial carcinoma will be heavily affected by molecular signature.

Which biomarkers are important in Endometrioid Carcinoma?

Certain precursor lesions and rare uterine tumor types associated with endometrioid carcinoma have characteristic molecular features. Atypical polypoid adenomyoma shows prominent hormone-receptor expression and nuclear β-catenin and has been suggested as a precursor of copy number-low, CTNNB1‑mutant endometrial cancers; uterine tumors resembling ovarian sex cord tumors have recurrent gene fusions.

What is the prognosis for Endometrioid Carcinoma?

TCGA-defined molecular subgroups of endometrioid carcinoma show different pooled hazard ratios for overall survival relative to the p53-wild-type subgroup (p53mt 2.505; MSI 1.287; POLEmt 0.481). Mismatch repair–deficient (MMRd) clear cell endometrial carcinomas appear to have a favorable prognosis and "might be lumped together with MMRd endometrioid carcinoma for management purpose."

Sources

Every statement above is drawn from these reviewed sources. This page reports what they describe. Sources last checked June 19, 2026.

  1. Meta-analysisTCGA molecular subgroups and FIGO grade in endometrial endometrioid carcinoma · 2020
  2. Meta-analysisImpact of endometrial carcinoma histotype on the prognostic value of the TCGA molecular subgroups · 2020
  3. Meta-analysisClear cell endometrial carcinomas with mismatch repair deficiency have a favorable prognosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis · 2021
  4. Systematic reviewDiabetes mellitus and responsiveness of endometrial hyperplasia and early endometrial cancer to conservative treatment · 2019
  5. Systematic reviewImmunophenotype of Atypical Polypoid Adenomyoma of the Uterus: Diagnostic Value and Insight on Pathogenesis · 2020
  6. Systematic reviewUterine lesions with sex cord-like architectures: a systematic review · 2019

What supports this page

The kinds of sources behind this page, strongest at the top. Faint rungs show what is not here yet.

Guideline
3
Meta-analysis
12
Systematic review
9
Randomized trial
1
Clinical trial
31
Observational
5
Case report
135
Review
470
Preclinical
0
Other
19

Living document — last change June 19, 2026: Cancer page updated. 2 recent updates logged.

Pooled evidence across studies

PubMed
  • Five-year relative survival: 83.6% (77–90.2 across studies) · (regimen unspecified)
    2 studies · 100% agree · consistent40752271
  • Risk of recurrence (subgroup): HR 0.705 (0.7–0.71 across studies) · (regimen unspecified)
    2 studies · 100% agree · consistent20629008

Medicines & supplements studied for Endometrioid Carcinoma

PubMedFDAClinicalTrials.gov

Every drug, supplement, and other agent the published studies cover for Endometrioid Carcinoma, ranked by how strong the evidence is — what studies report, not a recommendation. Tap any to see its full profile.

Medicines · 4

CarboplatinHuman · observationalMixed results1 human

Human observational evidence only — no trials.

Largest credible effect: median age 66, n=24 PMID 30036218 · response rates 11–63 across 7 studies

Most authoritative study: Undifferentiated Endometrial Carcinomas: Clinicopathologic Characteristics and Treatment Outcomes

Based on a single study.
ChemotherapyFDA off-label1 studyFull profile →
PaclitaxelHuman · observationalMixed results1 human

Human observational evidence only — no trials.

Largest credible effect: median age 66, n=24 PMID 30036218 · response rates 11–63 across 7 studies

Most authoritative study: Undifferentiated Endometrial Carcinomas: Clinicopathologic Characteristics and Treatment Outcomes

Based on a single study.
ChemotherapyFDA off-label1 studyFull profile →
CisplatinLab onlyMixed results1 lab

Lab / cell studies only — no human or animal data.

Most authoritative study: Impact of the glutathione synthesis pathway on sulfasalazine-treated endometrial cancer

No human studies yet · No numeric effect sizes reported · Based on a single study.
ChemotherapyFDA off-label1 studyFull profile →
Sulfasalazine †RxLab onlyMixed results1 lab

Lab / cell studies only — no human or animal data.

Most authoritative study: Impact of the glutathione synthesis pathway on sulfasalazine-treated endometrial cancer

No human studies yet · No numeric effect sizes reported · Based on a single study.
Repurposed drugs1 studyFull profile →

What recent studies report in Endometrioid Carcinoma

These are reviewed studies whose abstracts concern Endometrioid Carcinoma. Each describes only what that study reported. This is not a claim by OncoForge that any compound helps or harms Endometrioid Carcinoma. Most are early lab, animal, or small human studies, and findings often conflict.

60 studies23 human2 lab⚠ Conflicting evidenceMechanism (49)

Tracking 60 published studies of Endometrioid Carcinoma: 23 in humans, 2 in the lab, 35 reviews/other.

Reported direction across studies: 22 positive, 16 mixed, 22 inconclusive.

Findings conflict — both supportive and negative/mixed results exist (see below). Human evidence is limited.

These counts summarize what the studies reported; they are not a measure of whether anything works for Endometrioid Carcinoma.

Compounds with studies mentioning Endometrioid Carcinoma

Sulfasalazine (1)Cisplatin (1)Carboplatin (1)Paclitaxel (1)
Human · observationalMechanismReported positiveLimited evidenceTier 3 · early humann = 20

Adnexal Endometrioid Carcinomas With Sex Cord-Like Morphology are Frequently PAX8-Negative, SOX17-Positive, and Enriched for CTNNB1 Alterations

The American journal of surgical pathology · Jun 2026 · retrospective case series

endometrioid carcinoma (ovary)endometrioid carcinoma (fallopian tube)

The authors reviewed 20 adnexal endometrioid carcinomas with sex cord-like morphology to describe their histology, immunohistochemistry, and genomics. They found most tumors were PAX8-negative, universally SOX17-positive, frequently showed nuclear beta-catenin staining, and 9 of 10 sequenced cases had activating CTNNB1 variants. These findings suggest SOX17 immunostaining and awareness of CTNNB1/beta-catenin alterations may help avoid misclassification of these tumors.

Reported effects: tumors identified 20 · ovarian_tumors 17 · +15 more

Key findings
  • Twenty tumors (17 ovarian, 3 fallopian tube) were identified.
  • Sex cord-like patterns included cords/trabeculae (n=17), small tubular glands (n=16), and "granulosa-like" nests (n=12).
  • All tumors had conspicuous fibromatous stroma; 11 tumors had background endometrioid adenofibromas.
  • Six tumors had associated endometriosis.
  • PAX8 was positive in only 2/20 (diffuse in both).
  • SOX17 was positive in all cases (focal in 1, diffuse in 19).
  • Beta-catenin showed aberrant nuclear staining in 17/20.
  • Of the 10 sequenced tumors, 9 showed activating pathogenic variants in CTNNB1; each of these also showed nuclear beta-catenin staining.
  • All tumors lacked alterations in mismatch repair genes, TP53, and POLE (as reported).
Limitations: Small sample size (20 tumors).; Retrospective case series design with potential selection bias.; Genomic sequencing performed on a subset (10) of tumors only.; No control group of non-sex-cord-like endometrioid carcinomas presented for direct comparison.; No clinical outcome data or prospective validation reported..

AI summary of the abstract, human-reviewed · Sep 2026. Describes what this study reported, not medical advice. View on PubMed

Human · observationalMechanismMixed resultsLimited evidenceTier 3 · early humann = 923

Folate receptor alpha (FRα) expression in tubo-ovarian and endometrial tumors: a study of 923 cases

The journal of pathology. Clinical research · Mar 2026 · immunohistochemical study on tissue microarrays using the VENTANA FOLR1 CDx assay with standardized scoring criteria

tubo-ovarian tumorsendometrial tumorshigh-grade serous carcinoma (HGSC)low-grade serous carcinoma (LGSC)endometrial serous carcinomaserous borderline tumorendometrioid ovarian carcinomaclear cell ovarian carcinomamucinous ovarian tumorssex cord-stromal tumorsendometrial endometrioid carcinomasundifferentiated carcinomadedifferentiated carcinomaendometrial clear cell carcinoma

The study examined folate receptor alpha (FRα) expression by immunohistochemistry on tissue microarrays of 923 tubo-ovarian and endometrial tumors using the VENTANA FOLR1 CDx assay and standardized scoring. They found FRα expression most commonly in serous carcinomas (45% of HGSC, 25% LGSC) and less commonly in some endometrial serous and serous borderline tumors, while many other ovarian and endometrial tumor types were negative or rarely positive. The work is descriptive and does not report clinical outcomes or functional testing.

Reported effects: HGSC positive cases 45% · Low-grade serous carcinoma positive cases 25% · +4 more

Key findings
  • HGSC (high-grade serous carcinoma): 45% positive cases
  • Low-grade serous carcinoma: 25% positive cases
  • Endometrial serous carcinoma: 11% positive cases
  • Serous borderline tumor: 10% positive cases
  • Endometrioid ovarian carcinoma: 2% positive cases
  • Clear cell ovarian carcinoma: 1% positive cases
  • Mucinous ovarian tumors, sex cord-stromal tumors, endometrial endometrioid carcinomas, undifferentiated and dedifferentiated carcinomas, and endometrial clear cell carcinomas were reported as negative
Limitations: Descriptive immunohistochemistry only — no functional assays or correlation with clinical outcomes reported in the abstract; Use of tissue microarrays may under-represent intratumoral heterogeneity; Cross-sectional/tissue-based study without longitudinal or therapeutic response data.

AI summary of the abstract, human-reviewed · Sep 2026. Describes what this study reported, not medical advice. View on PubMed · Full text

Human · observationalMechanismReported positiveLimited evidenceTier 3 · early human

Endometrial Mixed and Mixed-Feature Carcinomas: Small Cohort Clinicopathologic and Molecular Studies

Cancers · Jan 2026

endometrial mixed carcinomaendometrial mixed-feature carcinomaendometrial serous carcinomaendometrioid carcinoma

This small cohort study compared clinical, histologic, and molecular features of mixed and mixed-feature endometrial carcinomas to pure serous and pure endometrioid carcinomas. The mixed tumors occurred in older patients, had shorter median disease-free survival, were high-grade and commonly composed of serous and endometrioid components, and showed identical TP53 and PIK3CA mutations between components consistent with a clonal origin. Mixed tumors also had additional alterations (e.g., TERT, MAP2K1) in higher-grade components, and ERBB2 amplifications were more frequent in the mixed groups.

Reported effects: median age 73 · median disease-free survival 23 mo · +2 more

Key findings
  • Patients with mixed and mixed-feature carcinomas were older (median age: 73 years) and had worse disease-free survival (median: 23 months) than those with pure endometrioid carcinoma (median: 48 months).
  • Mixed and mixed-feature carcinomas were histologically high-grade, most commonly comprising serous and endometrioid components.
  • Molecular profiling supported a clonal origin, with identical TP53 and PIK3CA mutations between the two histologic components in each case.
  • Additional gene mutations (e.g., TERT and MAP2K1) were found in higher-grade components.
  • ERBB2 amplifications were more frequent in the mixed carcinoma groups (33%) compared to pure serous (11%) and pure endometrioid carcinomas (0%).
  • Some mixed and mixed-feature carcinomas showed FBXW7 mutations not seen in pure endometrioid or pure serous carcinomas.
Limitations: Small cohort (described as a small cohort in the title/abstract).; No sample size or detailed study design reported in the abstract.; Observational design limits causal inference regarding outcomes.; Abstract gives no statistical measures (p-values, confidence intervals) or method details for molecular testing.; Potential limited genomic scope implied by the authors' call for targeted sequencing and larger cohorts..

AI summary of the abstract, human-reviewed · Aug 2026. Describes what this study reported, not medical advice. View on PubMed · Full text

Human · observationalMechanismReported positiveLimited evidenceTier 3 · early humann = 25

Stage IA3 endometrial cancer in the FIGO 2023 classification: a case of clarity or complexity?

International journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society · Jan 2026 · case series with centralized pathology review

endometrial carcinomaovarian endometrioid carcinoma

The authors reviewed 25 patients with synchronous endometrial and ovarian endometrioid carcinomas and compared staging under the FIGO 2009 versus FIGO 2023 classifications with centralized pathology review. Applying FIGO 2023 (and ESGO risk stratification) changed stage in 5 patients (20%), with 2 downstaged and 3 upstaged; among 11 patients with disease limited to uterus and ovaries, 5 met stage IA3 and none recurred, including 2 managed with surgery alone. The authors conclude FIGO 2023 IA3 can improve risk stratification, particularly for low-grade, ER-positive tumors with favorable molecular profiles, but note issues about adequate staging surgery and ovarian grading criteria.

Reported effects: stage_shifts 20%, n=25 · downstaged_count 2, n=25 · +4 more

Key findings
  • Study cohort comprised 25 patients with concurrent endometrial and ovarian tumors.
  • Applying FIGO 2023 classification and ESGO risk stratification led to stage shifts in 5 patients (20%): 2 were downstaged and 3 were upstaged.
  • Among 11 patients whose disease was limited to the uterus and ovaries, 5 met criteria for stage IA3 and none experienced recurrence; this group included 2 patients managed with surgery alone.
  • FIGO 2023 stage IA3 classification enables more precise risk stratification, particularly in low-grade, estrogen receptor-positive tumors with favorable molecular profiles (POLE-mutated or p53 wild-type / non-specific molecular profile).
  • The new classification raises operational issues: the need for appropriate staging surgery and debate about the optimal grading system for ovarian endometrioid carcinoma.
Limitations: Small sample size (25 patients).; Observational case-series design with potential selection bias.; Follow-up duration and timing of recurrence assessment are not reported in the abstract.; Low event counts (no recurrences reported) limit strength of outcome conclusions.; Generalizability limited by small cohort and lack of multi-center data in the abstract..

AI summary of the abstract, human-reviewed · Sep 2026. Describes what this study reported, not medical advice. View on PubMed

ReviewMechanismMixed resultsModerate evidenceTier 4 · clinical

Molecular Pathology of Ovarian Endometrioid Carcinoma: A Review

Oncology research · Nov 2025 · narrative review

ovarian endometrioid carcinomaepithelial ovarian cancer

This narrative review summarizes contemporary evidence about ovarian endometrioid carcinoma (OEC), applying the endometrial cancer molecular taxonomy (POLE‑ultramutated, MMRd, p53‑abnormal, NSMP) to OEC. The authors report that OEC is enriched for Lynch syndrome and recommend routine MMR testing; POLEmut/MMRd tumors generally have favorable outcomes and may be candidates for de‑escalation or immunotherapy, while p53‑abnormal/high‑grade tumors have poorer prognosis and may need intensified management or HRD‑directed strategies.

Reported effect: proportion_of_epithelial_ovarian_cancers 10%

Studied with: immune checkpoint inhibitors, HRD-directed strategies.

Key findings
  • Ovarian endometrioid carcinoma (OEC) accounts for ~10% of epithelial ovarian cancers and displays broad morphologic diversity that complicates diagnosis and grading.
  • The endometrial cancer molecular taxonomy (POLE‑ultramutated, MMRd, p53‑abnormal, NSMP) also applies to OEC.
  • OEC is enriched for Lynch syndrome‑associated tumors, supporting routine MMR testing.
  • Integrating morphology with molecular classification refines diagnosis and prognostication.
  • POLEmut/MMRd subsets generally have excellent outcomes and are candidates for de‑escalation or immunotherapy.
  • p53abn/high‑grade tumors carry a poorer prognosis and may warrant intensified management and trials of HRD‑directed strategies.
  • Routine MMR immunohistochemistry with reflex germline testing improves Lynch detection.
  • Future priorities include prospective validation and multi‑omics to refine NSMP and identify new targets.
Limitations: Narrative review rather than primary research; no new patient‑level data reported.; Recommendations (e.g., de‑escalation, therapeutic strategies) lack prospective validation in OEC as noted by the authors.; Broad morphologic diversity and diagnostic/grading challenges in OEC may limit generalizability of some recommendations.; NSMP group remains heterogeneous and requires further molecular refinement per the authors..

AI summary of the abstract, human-reviewed · Jun 2026. Describes what this study reported, not medical advice. View on PubMed · Full text

Case reportMechanismInconclusiveLimited evidenceTier 3 · early humann = 3

High-grade endometrioid carcinomas with pilomatrix-like features lacking CTNNB1 Mutations: Clinicopathologic characteristics and novel molecular events

Human pathology · Oct 2025 · case series

endometrial carcinomaendometrioid carcinomapilomatrix-like high-grade endometrioid carcinoma (PiMHEC)

The authors report three human cases of high-grade endometrioid carcinoma with pilomatrix-like features (PiMHEC) that lacked CTNNB1 exon 3 mutations and nuclear β-catenin by IHC. All tumors had characteristic pilomatrix-like morphology, presented at advanced stage, showed aggressive clinical behavior (two recurrences within 12 months), and targeted NGS identified alternative likely oncogenic alterations including FGFR4 p.T259A, TSC2 mutations, KRAS p.G12D, and MYC amplification.

Reported effects: number_of_cases 3, n=3 · patients_presenting_with_advanced_stage_disease 3, n=3 · +6 more

Key findings
  • Three cases of high-grade endometrioid carcinoma with pilomatrix-like features were analyzed.
  • All tumors demonstrated two components: a high-grade basaloid component with solid sheets of atypical basaloid cells, geographic necrosis, and focal "ghost" cells, and an associated low-grade FIGO grade 1 endometrioid carcinoma component.
  • None of the three cases showed nuclear β-catenin expression by IHC, and all lacked CTNNB1 exon 3 mutations.
  • All the patients presented with advanced-stage disease (stages IIC-IVB).
  • Two patients had a recurrence within 12 months.
  • NGS revealed no CTNNB1 mutations, but identified alternative likely oncogenic alterations: one tumor harbored an FGFR4 p. T259A mutation, two tumors had pathogenic TSC2 mutations, one had a KRAS p.G12D mutation, and two showed MYC amplification.
Limitations: Very small sample size (n=3) and single case-series design.; Case reports are descriptive and cannot establish causal relationships between identified mutations and the PiMHEC phenotype.; No functional validation provided to show that the alternative oncogenic alterations drive the pilomatrix-like phenotype.; Limited follow-up data reported (recurrence noted within 12 months for two patients), limiting assessment of long-term outcomes and prognostic significance..

AI summary of the abstract, human-reviewed · Jun 2026. Describes what this study reported, not medical advice. View on PubMed

Human · observationalMixed resultsModerate evidenceTier 3 · early humann = 390805

Age-specific incidence and five-year relative survival of endometrial cancer histotypes by race and ethnicity among US women, 2000 to 2019

Gynecologic oncology · Sep 2025 · retrospective population-based registry analysis (SEER22, 2000-2019)

endometrial cancerendometrioid carcinomanon-endometrioid carcinomacarcinosarcomaclear cell carcinomaserous carcinomamixed carcinoma

This population-based study used SEER22 data from 2000–2019 (n=390,805) to estimate hysterectomy-corrected, age-specific incidence rates and five-year relative survival for individual endometrial cancer histotypes by race and ethnicity. It found that endometrioid carcinoma incidence was much higher in non-Hispanic White women aged 50+ (104.1 per 100,000) than in other groups, that non-endometrioid histotypes increased sharply around ages 50–54 (especially in non-Hispanic Black women), and that five-year relative survival was highest for endometrioid carcinomas (90.2%) and lower for other histotypes (range 39.6%–59.1%).

Reported effects: endometrioid carcinoma incidence rate, non-Hispanic White women ages 50+ (per 100,000) 104.1 · endometrioid carcinoma incidence rate, other groups ages 50+ (per 100,000) · +3 more

Key findings
  • Estimated hysterectomy-corrected, age-specific incidence rates and five-year relative survival for endometrial cancer histotypes using SEER22 (N = 390,805).
  • Endometrioid carcinoma rates were similar by race/ethnicity in younger women but much higher in non-Hispanic White women ages 50+ years (104.1 per 100,000) versus other groups (51.1-68.5).
  • Non-endometrioid histotypes were rare in younger women, with mixed carcinomas being the most common among the non-endometrioid types.
  • Carcinosarcoma, clear cell, and serous carcinoma rates increased sharply at ages 50-54, especially in non-Hispanic Black women.
  • Median age at diagnosis was youngest in Hispanic and non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander women, particularly for endometrioid carcinomas.
  • Five-year relative survival: endometrioid carcinomas 90.2%; mixed carcinomas 77.0%; other non-endometrioid histotypes range 39.6%–59.1%.
Limitations: Observational registry study — cannot establish causal relationships between age/race/ethnicity and incidence or survival.; Potential for histotype or stage misclassification in registry data.; SEER lacks detailed individual-level risk factor, treatment, or molecular data to explain observed differences.; Hysterectomy-correction methods are estimations and may introduce uncertainty in incidence rates.; Findings are limited to populations covered by SEER and may not generalize to all US regions or internationally..

AI summary of the abstract, human-reviewed · Aug 2026. Describes what this study reported, not medical advice. View on PubMed

Case reportMechanismInconclusiveLimited evidenceTier 3 · early humann = 1

High-grade Endometrial Endometrioid Carcinoma: A Case Report of Complete Transdifferentiation to Pilomatrix-like Carcinoma

International journal of surgical pathology · Sep 2025 · Case report

Endometrial endometrioid carcinomaPilomatrix-like high-grade endometrioid carcinoma

This is a single-patient case report of a 56-year-old woman whose high-grade endometrial endometrioid carcinoma showed complete transdifferentiation to a pilomatrix-like carcinoma pattern, with metastases to ovaries and lymph nodes. Pathology showed basaloid cells with ghost cell keratinization, aberrant cytoplasmic and nuclear β-catenin expression, focal CDX2, absent PAX8 and ER/PR, and NGS identified a CTNNB1 (p.Ser37Phe) mutation with a variant allele frequency of 18.6%. The authors note this tumor is rare, diagnostically challenging, presented at high stage, and it is unknown whether standard adjuvant therapies are effective for this subtype.

Reported effect: CTNNB1 variant allele frequency 18.6%, n=1

Key findings
  • Hysterectomy specimen confirmed high-grade endometrioid carcinoma with secondary involvement of both ovaries, left tubo-ovarian ligament and obturator lymph nodes.
  • Microscopically the tumor had a solid, nested/insular pattern with peripheral basaloid cells, central ghost cell keratinization, and extensive geographic necrosis.
  • No low-grade endometrioid carcinoma component was identified in the primary tumor or metastases after extensive sampling.
  • Immunohistochemistry showed aberrant cytoplasmic and nuclear expression of β-catenin, focal CDX2 expression, and negativity for PAX8 and estrogen and progesterone receptors (ER/PR).
  • Next-generation sequencing found a CTNNB1 pathogenic mutation (p.Ser37Phe, c.110C > T) with a variant allele frequency of 18.6%.
  • Based on morphology, immunohistochemistry and NGS analysis, the diagnosis of pilomatrix-like high-grade endometrioid carcinoma was established.
Limitations: Single-patient case report — findings may not be generalizable.; No data presented on treatment given or therapeutic outcomes for this patient.; Follow-up and clinical outcome details are not reported in the abstract.; Unable to assess effectiveness of standard adjuvant therapies for this subtype from this report..

AI summary of the abstract, human-reviewed · Jun 2026. Describes what this study reported, not medical advice. View on PubMed

Human · observationalMechanismMixed resultsLimited evidenceTier 3 · early humann = 18

Exploring the Genetic and Clinical Landscape of Dedifferentiated Endometrioid Carcinoma

International journal of molecular sciences · Apr 2025

dedifferentiated endometrioid carcinomaendometrial cancer

This observational study analyzed 18 Japanese cases of dedifferentiated endometrioid carcinoma, with immunostaining on tumor components and whole-exome sequencing in three cases. The authors report that DDEC comprised 2.0% of endometrial cancers, had poor 5-year outcomes (PFS ≈40%, OS ≈30%), and that 66.7% of patients were mismatch repair deficient; they found differing mutation patterns between well-differentiated and undifferentiated components and suggest several targeted therapies could be relevant based on genetics.

Reported effects: incidence of DDEC among endometrial cancers 2% · 5-year progression-free survival 40% · +2 more

Key findings
  • Incidence of DDEC was 2.0% among endometrial cancers.
  • The 5-year progression-free survival for DDEC was approximately 40%.
  • The 5-year overall survival for DDEC was approximately 30%.
  • Immunohistochemistry indicated 66.7% of patients were mismatch repair deficient.
  • The rate of p53 mutations in this series was higher than reported previously, and p53 mutations in undifferentiated components were associated with poor prognosis.
  • Whole-exome sequencing (n = 3) showed different gene mutations and mutation signatures between well-differentiated and undifferentiated components.
  • New genetic mutations in undifferentiated regions were uncommon in the three sequenced cases.
  • Among the three sequenced cases: one showed homologous recombination deficiency, and the other two had MSI-high and hypermutator phenotypes.
  • Authors suggest that immune checkpoint inhibitors, PARP inhibitors, and drugs targeting the p53 pathway may be therapeutically relevant to DDEC based on the genetic findings.
Limitations: Small overall sample size (18 cases); Whole-exome sequencing performed in only 3 cases; Observational, descriptive design with no interventional testing of suggested therapies; Single-country (Japanese) cohort which may limit generalizability; No functional validation of suggested therapeutic targets reported in the abstract.

AI summary of the abstract, human-reviewed · Jun 2026. Describes what this study reported, not medical advice. View on PubMed · Full text

Case reportMechanismInconclusiveLimited evidenceTier 3 · early humann = 2

High-grade corded and hyalinized endometrioid carcinoma of "no specific molecular profile": report of two cases

Pathologica · Feb 2025 · case report (two cases)

corded and hyalinized endometrioid carcinomaendometrioid carcinomaendometrial carcinoma

This paper reports two human cases of high-grade corded and hyalinized endometrioid carcinoma (CHEC) that showed a "no specific molecular profile" (NSMP). Both tumors had a markedly atypical, mitotically active corded component merging with FIGO G3 endometrioid carcinoma and squamous/morular differentiation, and both showed nuclear β-catenin accumulation, retained mismatch repair protein expression, wild-type p53 pattern, and no POLE mutations. The authors note heterogeneity in age and presentation (patients aged 25 and 81) and suggest these tumors be considered a variant of FIGO G3 endometrioid carcinoma.

Reported effects: number_of_cases 2 · tumor_size_case1 6 · +2 more

Key findings
  • Both cases demonstrated a markedly atypical and mitotically active corded component merging with a FIGO G3 endometrioid component and accompanied by squamous/morular differentiation.
  • Both tumors showed nuclear β-catenin accumulation, retained MMR protein expression, wild-type p53 pattern, and no POLE mutations.
  • Case #1 was a 6-cm endometrial mass in a 25-year-old woman, infiltrating the deep myometrium and cervical stroma, with diffuse lymphovascular space invasion.
  • Case #2 was an advanced, unresectable endometrial carcinoma involving the lower third of the vagina in an 81-year-old woman.
  • The corded component was absent in the hysterectomy specimen of case #1 and in the vaginal biopsy specimen of case #2.
  • Authors conclude these cases expand the clinical and molecular heterogeneity of high-grade CHEC and suggest considering them as a variant of FIGO G3 endometrioid carcinoma.
Limitations: Very small sample size (two cases) — case report-level evidence.; Descriptive pathology series without systematic follow-up or outcome data reported in the abstract.; No control or comparison group.; Methods for molecular testing (e.g., POLE testing) and detailed molecular data are not provided in the abstract.; Findings may not be generalizable..

Pathology case report that expands the morphological and molecular spectrum of high-grade corded and hyalinized endometrioid carcinoma (CHEC) by describing two human cases with NSMP.

AI summary of the abstract, human-reviewed · Jun 2026. Describes what this study reported, not medical advice. View on PubMed · Full text

Case reportMechanismInconclusiveLimited evidenceTier 3 · early humann = 2

POLE-mutated Endometrial "Carcinosarcoma"

International journal of gynecological pathology : official journal of the International Society of Gynecological Pathologists · Jan 2025 · Case report (2 cases)

Endometrial carcinomaCarcinosarcomaEndometrioid carcinoma

The authors report two cases that were morphologically suspicious for endometrial carcinosarcoma but did not meet essential diagnostic criteria. Molecular testing identified pathogenic POLE mutations in both cases, and the tumors were described as low-grade endometrioid carcinomas with a homologous sarcoma component. The report questions the existence of a true POLE-mutated carcinosarcoma entity.

Key findings
  • Two cases had morphologic suspicion for endometrial carcinosarcoma but lacked essential criteria for that diagnosis.
  • Pathogenic POLE mutations were detected on molecular testing in both cases.
  • A descriptive diagnosis rendered was endometrial endometrioid carcinomas, low-grade, with a homologous sarcoma component.
  • These observations challenge the existence of POLE-mutated 'carcinosarcoma.'
Limitations: Very small sample size (2 cases).; Case report design without a systematic series or controls.; No clinical follow-up, treatment, or outcome data reported in the abstract.; Abstract provides limited pathological and methodological detail..

AI summary of the abstract, human-reviewed · Jun 2026. Describes what this study reported, not medical advice. View on PubMed

Human · observationalMechanismReported positiveModerate evidenceTier 3 · early humann = 122

STK11 (LKB1) immunohistochemistry is a sensitive and specific marker for STK11 adnexal tumours

Histopathology · Nov 2024 · immunohistochemical analysis of a cohort of human tumours (122 cases) including STK11 adnexal tumours and morphological mimics

STK11 adnexal tumourovarian neoplasmsovarian endometrioid carcinomatubo-ovarian high-grade serous carcinomaovarian mesonephric-like adenocarcinomaovarian carcinosarcomaperitoneal malignant mesotheliomapelvic plexiform leiomyomaovarian solid pseudopapillary tumourgranulosa cell tumourSertoli-Leydig cell tumourLeydig cell tumourSertoli cell tumoursteroid cell tumourfemale adnexal tumour of Wolffian originextra-ovarian sex cord-stromal tumour

Researchers performed STK11 (LKB1) immunohistochemistry on 122 human tumour samples, including 17 STK11 adnexal tumours and 105 morphological mimics. All 17 STK11 adnexal tumours showed complete loss of cytoplasmic STK11 staining. Nearly all other tumour types retained cytoplasmic STK11 staining, with the exception of one endometrioid carcinoma with mucinous differentiation showing complete loss and one high-grade serous carcinoma showing subclonal loss. The authors conclude STK11 IHC is a highly sensitive and specific marker for distinguishing STK11 adnexal tumour in the appropriate morphological context and could obviate confirmatory molecular testing.

Reported effects: total tumours tested 122, n=122 · STK11 adnexal tumours included 17, n=17 · +3 more

Key findings
  • IHC for STK11 was performed on 122 tumours, including 17 STK11 adnexal tumours and 105 morphological mimics (full list of mimics given in abstract).
  • All STK11 adnexal tumours showed complete loss of cytoplasmic staining for STK11.
  • All other tumour types showed retained cytoplasmic staining, except for one endometrioid carcinoma with mucinous differentiation which showed complete loss of STK11 expression and a high-grade serous carcinoma with subclonal loss.
  • Authors conclude STK11 IHC is a highly sensitive and specific immunohistochemical marker for distinguishing STK11 adnexal tumour from histological mimics and may obviate the need for confirmatory molecular studies in the appropriate morphological context.
Limitations: Small number of STK11 adnexal tumours (n=17), reflecting rarity of the entity.; Study reports a single cohort with no external validation cohort mentioned in the abstract.; Potential selection bias because tumour types were a selected set of morphological mimics.; Abstract does not report blinding, interobserver reproducibility, or diagnostic performance statistics (sensitivity/specificity values) beyond descriptive counts.; Two non-STK11 tumours showed loss/subclonal loss of STK11, indicating imperfect specificity in this cohort..

AI summary of the abstract, human-reviewed · Jun 2026. Describes what this study reported, not medical advice. View on PubMed · Full text

Browse all studies mentioning Endometrioid Carcinoma

Where the evidence is

What has been studied, and how strong it is, by topic. A dashed cell means no studies were found for that combination — a gap, not evidence of no effect. Open a row to see its studies.

CompoundHuman evidenceMechanismSafetyTrial
Carboplatin1
Paclitaxel1
Cisplatin1
Sulfasalazine †Rx1

Study mix

80 published studies by what they were done in. Lab and animal findings often do not carry over to people.

31 Human2 Lab47 Review/other
Reported directionReported positive29Mixed results19Inconclusive32

Evidence at a glance: compounds studied in Endometrioid Carcinoma

A deterministic grade of what published studies report for each: strength of evidence, the reported direction, and the largest credible effect, strongest-evidence first. This summarizes findings; it is not a claim that anything works.

CarboplatinHuman · observationalMixed results1 human

Human observational evidence only — no trials.

Largest credible effect: median age 66, n=24 PMID 30036218 · response rates 11–63 across 7 studies

Most authoritative study: Undifferentiated Endometrial Carcinomas: Clinicopathologic Characteristics and Treatment Outcomes

Based on a single study.
PaclitaxelHuman · observationalMixed results1 human

Human observational evidence only — no trials.

Largest credible effect: median age 66, n=24 PMID 30036218 · response rates 11–63 across 7 studies

Most authoritative study: Undifferentiated Endometrial Carcinomas: Clinicopathologic Characteristics and Treatment Outcomes

Based on a single study.
CisplatinLab onlyMixed results1 lab

Lab / cell studies only — no human or animal data.

Most authoritative study: Impact of the glutathione synthesis pathway on sulfasalazine-treated endometrial cancer

No human studies yet · No numeric effect sizes reported · Based on a single study.
Sulfasalazine †RxLab onlyMixed results1 lab

Lab / cell studies only — no human or animal data.

Most authoritative study: Impact of the glutathione synthesis pathway on sulfasalazine-treated endometrial cancer

No human studies yet · No numeric effect sizes reported · Based on a single study.

What the research shows for Endometrioid Carcinoma

A plain-language summary of the reviewed studies OncoForge tracks for Endometrioid Carcinoma. It reports what those studies described, not a claim that any compound or therapy helps or harms Endometrioid Carcinoma. Most of this evidence is early, and findings often conflict.

  • Narrative reviews summarize pathology, immunohistochemical markers, and molecular features used to diagnose and subclassify endometrioid and related ovarian tumors; these reviews highlight links between ovarian endometrioid carcinoma and endometriosis and between some tumors and hereditary (Lynch/HNPCC) syndromes.
  • An expert consensus review addressed diagnostic challenges in high-grade endometrial carcinomas and recommended morphologic criteria and immunohistochemical marker panels to help distinguish FIGO grade 3 endometrioid carcinoma from serous and other high-grade subtypes.
  • A review of ovarian clear cell carcinoma literature contrasts clinical features (younger age at diagnosis for some patients, relative platinum resistance, and higher thromboembolic risk) and notes differences in behavior compared with other epithelial ovarian cancers; some findings are more established for clear cell histology than for endometrioid histology.
  • A small observational human study comparing endometrial clear cell carcinoma and endometrioid carcinoma reported that clear cell cases were older and had higher rates of myometrial invasion and lymphovascular space invasion; the study applied TCGA molecular classification to a subset of tumors, with limited and mixed results.

Supportive & alternative options discussed

  • Exercise / prehabilitation: Also discussed as a supportive option for people with endometrial cancer to improve fitness, fatigue, and quality of life; these supportive benefits are separate from the pathology- and biomarker-focused studies summarized above.
  • Mind–body (MBSR / CBT): Also discussed as a supportive option for coping with cancer-related stress, anxiety, and quality-of-life concerns in endometrial cancer care; such supportive approaches are not the focus of the studies summarized here.
  • Acupuncture: Also discussed as a supportive option for symptom control (for example, pain or nausea) in gynecologic cancer care; this was not evaluated in the pathology, biomarker, and observational studies summarized above.
  • Hyperthermia (heat): Also discussed in some clinical contexts as an adjunctive local treatment modality for gynecologic tumors, but the reviews and observational study summarized here do not provide evidence about its use in endometrioid carcinoma specifically.
  • Ketogenic / metabolic therapy: Also discussed by some as a supportive dietary approach for people with cancer, but the articles summarized here do not evaluate ketogenic diets in endometrioid carcinoma.

What we don’t know yet

  • Do the described biomarkers and molecular classifications reliably predict clinical outcomes or guide treatment decisions for endometrioid carcinoma in prospective, appropriately powered studies?
  • How well do findings from ovarian endometrioid and clear cell tumor reviews apply to endometrial (uterine) endometrioid carcinoma, given tumor-site biological differences?
  • What are the optimal diagnostic algorithms (including which immunohistochemical panels to use) in routine practice across diverse pathology settings?
  • Are there large, controlled clinical studies validating the prognostic or therapeutic implications of the molecular subgroups described (for example, TCGA classes) specifically in endometrioid carcinoma?
The available literature summarized here is mostly narrative reviews and a small observational study focusing on pathology, biomarkers, and clinical features; it does not establish causal effects or definitive clinical benefits and is limited by small samples and heterogeneous tumor sites.

Clinical trials in Endometrioid Carcinoma

53 ongoing · 65 completed · tracked from ClinicalTrials.gov. Recruiting is not the same as proven, and completed is not the same as positive — read the results. Not a recommendation.

Completed
29 stopped (terminated / withdrawn / suspended)

Search all trials on ClinicalTrials.gov →

Getting care & support

Nonprofit / Gov

Practical, vetted help for Endometrioid Carcinoma — advocacy, paying for treatment, second opinions, and caregivers.

If you’re struggling emotionally, you don’t have to wait.

Advocacy & community

No dedicated organization for this specific cancer is curated yet — these general organizations can help in the meantime.

Financial help

  • PAN FoundationCopay assistance funds by diagnosis (funds open and close as money allows). · status changes often — check the fund’s site
  • HealthWell FoundationCopay and premium assistance funds by disease. · status changes often — check the fund’s site
  • CancerCare — financial assistanceLimited grants plus free financial counseling. · status changes often — check the fund’s site
  • Family ReachHelp with everyday living costs (rent, transport, food) during treatment. · status changes often — check the fund’s site
  • NeedyMedsSearchable directory of drug patient-assistance and discount programs. · status changes often — check the fund’s site
What you’ll typically need to apply
  • Your diagnosis and, if you have it, the specific drug/treatment name (from your care team).
  • Insurance details — your member ID card, or a note that you're uninsured (some funds require active insurance, some don't).
  • Proof of income and household size (recent pay stubs, a tax return, or a benefits letter) — most funds are income-based.
  • Your prescriber's contact information; some programs need the clinic to submit part of the application.
  • Apply early and re-check: funds open and close as money is available, so a closed fund may reopen.

General guidance — each program sets its own eligibility. Confirm requirements on the program’s site.

Help paying for the medicines on this page

Second opinions

Caregiver support

We list only non-profit and government resources — never product sellers — and take no affiliate fees. If a link is broken or a resource doesn't meet that bar, tell us.

Interactions & safety to check: Endometrioid Carcinoma

This is not a complete interaction check. It only covers the compounds we track and the signals reported in studies. A drug or supplement not listed here is not therefore safe. Bring your full medication and supplement list to your pharmacist and oncologist before changing anything.

Potential interactions: highest-stakes first

Safety considerations

Heading to an appointment? Get a printable one-page summary — studied compounds, open trials, interactions, and questions to ask.
Bring this to your appointment →