OBJECTIVE: The benefit of evaluating the precursor of endometrial carcinoma, endometrial hyperplasia (intraepithelial neoplasia [EIN]), for loss of mismatch repair (MMR) protein expression and Lynch syndrome has yet to be determined. The present study aims to establish the incidence and type of loss of MMR protein expression in unselected premalignant lesions of endometrial adenocarcinoma, as well as the agreement of immunohistochemical staining in pretreatment endometrial biopsy (EMB) specimens with subsequent uterine resections. METHODS: A retrospective review identified 112 endometrial biopsies meeting criteria for endometrial EIN. Slides made from tissue microarray blocks were evaluated using antibodies against MLH1, PMS2, MSH2, and MSH6. Cases with a deficit in MLH1 were evaluated for gene promoter hypermethylation by polymerase chain reaction analysis. Fifty-four subsequent hysterectomy specimens were retrieved and assessed for MMR protein expression. RESULTS: Of the 112 endometrial biopsies with EIN, 4.5% (5/112) exhibited loss of MMR protein expression. The majority (4/5) demonstrated a deficit of MLH1, of which all exhibited inactivation via promoter hypermethylation. A single case displayed an absence of MSH6. Age was not significantly associated with MMR deficiency. There was no significant association between MMR status in the EMB and a subsequent diagnosis of cancer. Immunohistochemical staining in all successive hysterectomy cases was concordant with the pattern observed in the EMB specimen. CONCLUSIONS: Sporadic hypermethylation of MLH1 seems to be the primary mechanism underlying defective MMR protein expression in EIN. Among our cohort, only 1 patient (<1%) had a mutation suggestive of a hereditary inheritance. Hence, the utility of evaluating EIN for MMR protein expression as a screen for Lynch syndrome is limited, regardless of age.
OBJECTIVE: The benefit of evaluating the precursor of endometrial carcinoma, endometrial hyperplasia (intraepithelial neoplasia [EIN]), for loss of mismatch repair (MMR) protein expression and Lynch syndrome has yet to be determined. The present study aims to establish the incidence and type of loss of MMR protein expression in unselected premalignant lesions of endometrial adenocarcinoma, as well as the agreement of immunohistochemical staining in pretreatment endometrial biopsy (EMB) specimens with subsequent uterine resections. METHODS: A retrospective review identified 112 endometrial biopsies meeting criteria for endometrial EIN. Slides made from tissue microarray blocks were evaluated using antibodies against MLH1, PMS2, MSH2, and MSH6. Cases with a deficit in MLH1 were evaluated for gene promoter hypermethylation by polymerase chain reaction analysis. Fifty-four subsequent hysterectomy specimens were retrieved and assessed for MMR protein expression. RESULTS: Of the 112 endometrial biopsies with EIN, 4.5% (5/112) exhibited loss of MMR protein expression. The majority (4/5) demonstrated a deficit of MLH1, of which all exhibited inactivation via promoter hypermethylation. A single case displayed an absence of MSH6. Age was not significantly associated with MMR deficiency. There was no significant association between MMR status in the EMB and a subsequent diagnosis of cancer. Immunohistochemical staining in all successive hysterectomy cases was concordant with the pattern observed in the EMB specimen. CONCLUSIONS: Sporadic hypermethylation of MLH1 seems to be the primary mechanism underlying defective MMR protein expression in EIN. Among our cohort, only 1 patient (<1%) had a mutation suggestive of a hereditary inheritance. Hence, the utility of evaluating EIN for MMR protein expression as a screen for Lynch syndrome is limited, regardless of age.
Authors: Jinru Shia; David S Klimstra; Khedoudja Nafa; Kenneth Offit; Jose G Guillem; Arnold J Markowitz; William L Gerald; Nathan A Ellis Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: Ashley S Felix; Joel L Weissfeld; Roslyn A Stone; Robert Bowser; Mamatha Chivukula; Robert P Edwards; Faina Linkov Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2010-07-14 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Heather Hampel; Wendy Frankel; Jenny Panescu; Janet Lockman; Kaisa Sotamaa; Daniel Fix; Ilene Comeras; Jennifer La Jeunesse; Hidewaki Nakagawa; Judith A Westman; Thomas W Prior; Mark Clendenning; Pamela Penzone; Janet Lombardi; Patti Dunn; David E Cohn; Larry Copeland; Lynne Eaton; Jeffrey Fowler; George Lewandowski; Luis Vaccarello; Jeffrey Bell; Gary Reid; Albert de la Chapelle Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2006-08-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Karen H Lu; Mai Dinh; Wendy Kohlmann; Patrice Watson; Jane Green; Sapna Syngal; Prathap Bandipalliam; Lee-May Chen; Brian Allen; Peggy Conrad; Jonathan Terdiman; Charlotte Sun; Molly Daniels; Thomas Burke; David M Gershenson; Henry Lynch; Patrick Lynch; Russell R Broaddus Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Jessica Moline; Haider Mahdi; Bin Yang; Charles Biscotti; Andres A Roma; Brandie Heald; Peter G Rose; Chad Michener; Charis Eng Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2013-04-20 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Taina T Nieminen; Annette Gylling; Wael M Abdel-Rahman; Kyösti Nuorva; Markku Aarnio; Laura Renkonen-Sinisalo; Heikki J Järvinen; Jukka-Pekka Mecklin; Ralf Bützow; Päivi Peltomäki Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2009-09-01 Impact factor: 12.531