BACKGROUND: Few biomarkers of ovarian cancer prognosis have been established, partly because subtype-specific associations might be obscured in studies combining all histopathological subtypes. We examined whether tumour expression of the progesterone receptor (PR) and oestrogen receptor (ER) was associated with subtype-specific survival. METHODS: 12 studies participating in the Ovarian Tumor Tissue Analysis consortium contributed tissue microarray sections and clinical data to our study. Participants included in our analysis had been diagnosed with invasive serous, mucinous, endometrioid, or clear-cell carcinomas of the ovary. For a patient to be eligible, tissue microarrays, clinical follow-up data, age at diagnosis, and tumour grade and stage had to be available. Clinical data were obtained from medical records, cancer registries, death certificates, pathology reports, and review of histological slides. PR and ER statuses were assessed by central immunohistochemistry analysis done by masked pathologists. PR and ER staining was defined as negative (<1% tumour cell nuclei), weak (1 to <50%), or strong (≥50%). Associations with disease-specific survival were assessed. FINDINGS: 2933 women with invasive epithelial ovarian cancer were included: 1742 with high-grade serous carcinoma, 110 with low-grade serous carcinoma, 207 with mucinous carcinoma, 484 with endometrioid carcinoma, and 390 with clear-cell carcinoma. PR expression was associated with improved disease-specific survival in endometrioid carcinoma (log-rank p<0·0001) and high-grade serous carcinoma (log-rank p=0·0006), and ER expression was associated with improved disease-specific survival in endometrioid carcinoma (log-rank p<0·0001). We recorded no significant associations for mucinous, clear-cell, or low-grade serous carcinoma. Positive hormone-receptor expression (weak or strong staining for PR or ER, or both) was associated with significantly improved disease-specific survival in endometrioid carcinoma compared with negative hormone-receptor expression, independent of study site, age, stage, and grade (hazard ratio 0·33, 95% CI 0·21-0·51; p<0·0001). Strong PR expression was independently associated with improved disease-specific survival in high-grade serous carcinoma (0·71, 0·55-0·91; p=0·0080), but weak PR expression was not (1·02, 0·89-1·18; p=0·74). INTERPRETATION: PR and ER are prognostic biomarkers for endometrioid and high-grade serous ovarian cancers. Clinical trials, stratified by subtype and biomarker status, are needed to establish whether hormone-receptor status predicts response to endocrine treatment, and whether it could guide personalised treatment for ovarian cancer. FUNDING: Carraresi Foundation and others.
BACKGROUND: Few biomarkers of ovarian cancer prognosis have been established, partly because subtype-specific associations might be obscured in studies combining all histopathological subtypes. We examined whether tumour expression of the progesterone receptor (PR) and oestrogen receptor (ER) was associated with subtype-specific survival. METHODS: 12 studies participating in the Ovarian Tumor Tissue Analysis consortium contributed tissue microarray sections and clinical data to our study. Participants included in our analysis had been diagnosed with invasive serous, mucinous, endometrioid, or clear-cell carcinomas of the ovary. For a patient to be eligible, tissue microarrays, clinical follow-up data, age at diagnosis, and tumour grade and stage had to be available. Clinical data were obtained from medical records, cancer registries, death certificates, pathology reports, and review of histological slides. PR and ER statuses were assessed by central immunohistochemistry analysis done by masked pathologists. PR and ER staining was defined as negative (<1% tumour cell nuclei), weak (1 to <50%), or strong (≥50%). Associations with disease-specific survival were assessed. FINDINGS: 2933 women with invasive epithelial ovarian cancer were included: 1742 with high-grade serous carcinoma, 110 with low-grade serous carcinoma, 207 with mucinous carcinoma, 484 with endometrioid carcinoma, and 390 with clear-cell carcinoma. PR expression was associated with improved disease-specific survival in endometrioid carcinoma (log-rank p<0·0001) and high-grade serous carcinoma (log-rank p=0·0006), and ER expression was associated with improved disease-specific survival in endometrioid carcinoma (log-rank p<0·0001). We recorded no significant associations for mucinous, clear-cell, or low-grade serous carcinoma. Positive hormone-receptor expression (weak or strong staining for PR or ER, or both) was associated with significantly improved disease-specific survival in endometrioid carcinoma compared with negative hormone-receptor expression, independent of study site, age, stage, and grade (hazard ratio 0·33, 95% CI 0·21-0·51; p<0·0001). Strong PR expression was independently associated with improved disease-specific survival in high-grade serous carcinoma (0·71, 0·55-0·91; p=0·0080), but weak PR expression was not (1·02, 0·89-1·18; p=0·74). INTERPRETATION: PR and ER are prognostic biomarkers for endometrioid and high-grade serous ovarian cancers. Clinical trials, stratified by subtype and biomarker status, are needed to establish whether hormone-receptor status predicts response to endocrine treatment, and whether it could guide personalised treatment for ovarian cancer. FUNDING: Carraresi Foundation and others.
Authors: V McGuire; A Felberg; M Mills; K L Ostrow; R DiCioccio; E M John; D W West; A S Whittemore Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2004-10-01 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Kelly L Bolton; Georgia Chenevix-Trench; Cindy Goh; Siegal Sadetzki; Susan J Ramus; Beth Y Karlan; Diether Lambrechts; Evelyn Despierre; Daniel Barrowdale; Lesley McGuffog; Sue Healey; Douglas F Easton; Olga Sinilnikova; Javier Benítez; María J García; Susan Neuhausen; Mitchell H Gail; Patricia Hartge; Susan Peock; Debra Frost; D Gareth Evans; Rosalind Eeles; Andrew K Godwin; Mary B Daly; Ava Kwong; Edmond S K Ma; Conxi Lázaro; Ignacio Blanco; Marco Montagna; Emma D'Andrea; Maria Ornella Nicoletto; Sharon E Johnatty; Susanne Krüger Kjær; Allan Jensen; Estrid Høgdall; Ellen L Goode; Brooke L Fridley; Jennifer T Loud; Mark H Greene; Phuong L Mai; Angela Chetrit; Flora Lubin; Galit Hirsh-Yechezkel; Gord Glendon; Irene L Andrulis; Amanda E Toland; Leigha Senter; Martin E Gore; Charlie Gourley; Caroline O Michie; Honglin Song; Jonathan Tyrer; Alice S Whittemore; Valerie McGuire; Weiva Sieh; Ulf Kristoffersson; Håkan Olsson; Åke Borg; Douglas A Levine; Linda Steele; Mary S Beattie; Salina Chan; Robert L Nussbaum; Kirsten B Moysich; Jenny Gross; Ilana Cass; Christine Walsh; Andrew J Li; Ronald Leuchter; Ora Gordon; Montserrat Garcia-Closas; Simon A Gayther; Stephen J Chanock; Antonis C Antoniou; Paul D P Pharoah Journal: JAMA Date: 2012-01-25 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Martin Köbel; Alexander Reuss; Andreas du Bois; Stefan Kommoss; Friedrich Kommoss; Dongxia Gao; Steve E Kalloger; David G Huntsman; C Blake Gilks Journal: J Pathol Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 7.996
Authors: Ahmedin Jemal; Freddie Bray; Melissa M Center; Jacques Ferlay; Elizabeth Ward; David Forman Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2011-02-04 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Anais Malpica; Michael T Deavers; Karen Lu; Diane C Bodurka; Edward N Atkinson; David M Gershenson; Elvio G Silva Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: Marc T Goodman; Galina Lurie; Pamela J Thompson; Katharine E McDuffie; Michael E Carney Journal: Endocr Relat Cancer Date: 2008-07-30 Impact factor: 5.678
Authors: Olga Kim; Eun Young Park; Sun Young Kwon; Sojin Shin; Robert E Emerson; Yong-Hyun Shin; Francesco J DeMayo; John P Lydon; Donna M Coffey; Shannon M Hawkins; Lawrence A Quilliam; Dong-Joo Cheon; Facundo M Fernández; Kenneth P Nephew; Adam R Karpf; Martin Widschwendter; Anil K Sood; Robert C Bast; Andrew K Godwin; Kathy D Miller; Chi-Heum Cho; Jaeyeon Kim Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2020-12-01 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Claire S Zhu; Wen-Yi Huang; Paul F Pinsky; Christine D Berg; Mark Sherman; Kelly J Yu; Danielle M Carrick; Amanda Black; Robert Hoover; Petra Lenz; Craig Williams; Laura Hawkins; Matthew Chaloux; Susan Yurgalevitch; Sunitha Mathew; Amy Miller; Vanessa Olivo; Asia Khan; Shannon M Pretzel; Deborah Multerer; Patricia Beckmann; Karen G Broski; Neal D Freedman Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2016-09-15 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Britton Trabert; Louise A Brinton; Garnet L Anderson; Ruth M Pfeiffer; Roni T Falk; Howard D Strickler; Sarunas Sliesoraitis; Lewis H Kuller; Margery L Gass; Barbara J Fuhrman; Xia Xu; Nicolas Wentzensen Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2016-02-05 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Caroline H Diep; Andrea R Daniel; Laura J Mauro; Todd P Knutson; Carol A Lange Journal: J Mol Endocrinol Date: 2015-01-13 Impact factor: 5.098
Authors: Nikolaos Svoronos; Alfredo Perales-Puchalt; Michael J Allegrezza; Melanie R Rutkowski; Kyle K Payne; Amelia J Tesone; Jenny M Nguyen; Tyler J Curiel; Mark G Cadungog; Sunil Singhal; Evgeniy B Eruslanov; Paul Zhang; Julia Tchou; Rugang Zhang; Jose R Conejo-Garcia Journal: Cancer Discov Date: 2016-09-30 Impact factor: 39.397
Authors: Martin Köbel; Li Luo; Xin Grevers; Sandra Lee; Angela Brooks-Wilson; C Blake Gilks; Nhu D Le; Linda S Cook Journal: Int J Gynecol Pathol Date: 2019-07 Impact factor: 2.762
Authors: Bradley R Corr; Jessica Finlay-Schultz; Rachel B Rosen; Lubna Qamar; Miriam D Post; Kian Behbakht; Monique A Spillman; Carol A Sartorius Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2015-11 Impact factor: 3.437