Literature DB >> 23932335

Hormone receptor loss in endometrial carcinoma curettage predicts lymph node metastasis and poor outcome in prospective multicentre trial.

Jone Trovik1, Elisabeth Wik, Henrica M J Werner, Camilla Krakstad, Harald Helland, Ingrid Vandenput, Tormund S Njolstad, Ingunn M Stefansson, Janusz Marcickiewicz, Solveig Tingulstad, Anne C Staff, Frederic Amant, Lars A Akslen, Helga B Salvesen.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Preoperative histologic examination of tumour tissue is essential when deciding if endometrial cancer surgery should include lymph node sampling. We wanted to investigate if biomarkers could improve prediction of lymph node metastasis and outcome. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Curettage specimens from 832 endometrial carcinoma patients prospectively recruited from 10 centres in the MoMaTEC trial (Molecular Markers in Treatment of Endometrial Cancer) were investigated for hormone receptor and p53 status.
RESULTS: Eighteen per cent of tumours were double negative for oestrogen- and progesterone receptors (ER/PR loss), 24% overexpressed p53. Pathologic expression of all markers correlated with nodal metastases, high FIGO (Federation International of Gynecology and Obstetrics) stage, non-endometrioid histology, high grade and poor prognosis (all P<0.001). ER/PR loss independently predicted lymph node metastasis (odds ratios (OR) 2.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.1-3.7) adjusted for preoperative curettage histology and predicted poor disease-specific survival adjusted for age, FIGO stage, histologic type, grade and myometrial infiltration (hazard ratio (HR) 2.3, 95% CI 1.4-3.9). For lymph node negative endometrioid tumours, ER/PR loss influenced survival independent of grade.
CONCLUSION: Double negative hormone receptor status in endometrial cancer curettage independently predicts lymph node metastasis and poor prognosis in a prospective multicentre setting. Implementing hormone receptor status to improve risk-stratification for selecting patients unlikely to benefit from lymphadenectomy seems justified.
Copyright © 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biomarker; Curettage; Endometrial cancer; Hormone receptors; Lymph node metastases; Prognosis

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23932335     DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2013.06.016

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Cancer        ISSN: 0959-8049            Impact factor:   9.162


  51 in total

Review 1.  Current status of molecular biomarkers in endometrial cancer.

Authors:  H M J Werner; H B Salvesen
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 5.075

Review 2.  Prognostic biomarkers in endometrial and ovarian carcinoma.

Authors:  Xavier Matias-Guiu; Ben Davidson
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2014-02-07       Impact factor: 4.064

3.  Diagnostic Accuracy of Clinical Biomarkers for Preoperative Prediction of Lymph Node Metastasis in Endometrial Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Casper Reijnen; Joanna IntHout; Leon F A G Massuger; Fleur Strobbe; Heidi V N Küsters-Vandevelde; Ingfrid S Haldorsen; Marc P L M Snijders; Johanna M A Pijnenborg
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2019-06-11

Review 4.  Role of nuclear progesterone receptor isoforms in uterine pathophysiology.

Authors:  Bansari Patel; Sonia Elguero; Suruchi Thakore; Wissam Dahoud; Mohamed Bedaiwy; Sam Mesiano
Journal:  Hum Reprod Update       Date:  2014-11-18       Impact factor: 15.610

5.  PIK3CA Amplification Associates with Aggressive Phenotype but Not Markers of AKT-MTOR Signaling in Endometrial Carcinoma.

Authors:  Rameen Beroukhim; Helga B Salvesen; Frederik Holst; Henrica M J Werner; Siv Mjøs; Erling A Hoivik; Kanthida Kusonmano; Elisabeth Wik; Anna Berg; Even Birkeland; William J Gibson; Mari K Halle; Jone Trovik; Andrew D Cherniack; Karl-Henning Kalland; Gordon B Mills; Christian F Singer; Camilla Krakstad
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2018-11-15       Impact factor: 12.531

6.  Endometrial Cancer Risk Factors, Hormone Receptors, and Mortality Prediction.

Authors:  Evan L Busch; Marta Crous-Bou; Jennifer Prescott; Maxine M Chen; Michael J Downing; Bernard A Rosner; George L Mutter; Immaculata De Vivo
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2017-01-04       Impact factor: 4.254

Review 7.  Immunotherapy in endometrial cancer: rationale, practice and perspectives.

Authors:  Wenyu Cao; Xinyue Ma; Jean Victoria Fischer; Chenggong Sun; Beihua Kong; Qing Zhang
Journal:  Biomark Res       Date:  2021-06-16

8.  Triple negative endometrial cancer: Incidence and prognosis in a monoinstitutional series of 220 patients.

Authors:  Rosa Porzio; Claudia Cordini; Anna Maria Rodolfi; Francesca Brigati; Alessandro Ubiali; Manuela Proietto; Camilla Di Nunzio; Luigi Cavanna
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2020-01-22       Impact factor: 2.967

9.  HER2-positive endometrial cancer subtype carries poor prognosis.

Authors:  Sylwia Lapińska-Szumczyk; Anna Supernat; Hanna Majewska; Jacek Gulczyński; Agata Luczak; Wojciech Biernat; Dariusz Wydra; Anna J Zaczek
Journal:  Clin Transl Sci       Date:  2014-09-09       Impact factor: 4.689

10.  Association between differential gene expression and body mass index among endometrial cancers from The Cancer Genome Atlas Project.

Authors:  Dario R Roque; Liza Makowski; Ting-Huei Chen; Naim Rashid; D Neil Hayes; Victoria Bae-Jump
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2016-06-14       Impact factor: 5.482

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.