Caroline C Billingsley1, David E Cohn, David G Mutch, Erinn M Hade, Paul J Goodfellow. 1. *Division of Gynecology Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The Ohio State University, College of Medicine, Columbus, OH; †Division of Gynecology Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University, St Louis, MO; and ‡Center for Biostatistics, Department of Biomedical Informatics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: POLE mutations in high-grade endometrioid endometrial cancer (EEC) have been associated with improved survival. We sought to investigate the prevalence of POLE tumor mutation and its prognostic significance on outcomes and clinical applications in a subanalysis of women with high-grade EEC from a previously described cohort of 544 EEC patients in which POLE mutation status and survival outcomes were assessed. METHODS: Polymerase chain reaction amplification and Sanger sequencing were used to test for POLE mutations in 72 tumors. Associations between POLE mutation, demographic and clinicopathologic features, and survival were investigated with Cox proportional hazard models. RESULTS: POLE mutations were identified in 7 (9.7%) of 72 grade 3 EECs. No significant differences in the clinicopathologic features between those with POLE mutations and those without were identified. Adjusted for age, a decreased risk of recurrence was suggested in patients with a POLE mutation (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.37; 95% confidence interval, 0.09-1.55), as well as decreased risk of death (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.03-1.42). CONCLUSIONS: POLE mutations in tumors of women with grade 3 EEC are associated with a lower risk of recurrence and death, although not statistically significant because of high variability in these estimates. These findings, consistent with recently published combined analyses, support POLE mutation status as a noteworthy prognostic marker and may favor a change in the treatment of women with grade 3 EECs, particularly in those with early-stage disease, in which omission of adjuvant therapy and decreased surveillance could possibly be appropriate.
OBJECTIVE: POLE mutations in high-grade endometrioid endometrial cancer (EEC) have been associated with improved survival. We sought to investigate the prevalence of POLE tumor mutation and its prognostic significance on outcomes and clinical applications in a subanalysis of women with high-grade EEC from a previously described cohort of 544 EEC patients in which POLE mutation status and survival outcomes were assessed. METHODS: Polymerase chain reaction amplification and Sanger sequencing were used to test for POLE mutations in 72 tumors. Associations between POLE mutation, demographic and clinicopathologic features, and survival were investigated with Cox proportional hazard models. RESULTS: POLE mutations were identified in 7 (9.7%) of 72 grade 3 EECs. No significant differences in the clinicopathologic features between those with POLE mutations and those without were identified. Adjusted for age, a decreased risk of recurrence was suggested in patients with a POLE mutation (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.37; 95% confidence interval, 0.09-1.55), as well as decreased risk of death (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.03-1.42). CONCLUSIONS: POLE mutations in tumors of women with grade 3 EEC are associated with a lower risk of recurrence and death, although not statistically significant because of high variability in these estimates. These findings, consistent with recently published combined analyses, support POLE mutation status as a noteworthy prognostic marker and may favor a change in the treatment of women with grade 3 EECs, particularly in those with early-stage disease, in which omission of adjuvant therapy and decreased surveillance could possibly be appropriate.
Authors: C L Creutzberg; W L van Putten; P C Koper; M L Lybeert; J J Jobsen; C C Wárlám-Rodenhuis; K A De Winter; L C Lutgens; A C van den Bergh; E van de Steen-Banasik; H Beerman; M van Lent Journal: Lancet Date: 2000-04-22 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Robert E Goldsby; Laura E Hays; Xin Chen; Elise A Olmsted; William B Slayton; Gerry J Spangrude; Bradley D Preston Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2002-11-12 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Zachary F Pursell; Isabelle Isoz; Else-Britt Lundström; Erik Johansson; Thomas A Kunkel Journal: Science Date: 2007-07-06 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: R Parsons; G M Li; M J Longley; W H Fang; N Papadopoulos; J Jen; A de la Chapelle; K W Kinzler; B Vogelstein; P Modrich Journal: Cell Date: 1993-12-17 Impact factor: 41.582
Authors: Israel Zighelboim; Paul J Goodfellow; Feng Gao; Randall K Gibb; Matthew A Powell; Janet S Rader; David G Mutch Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-05-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Henry M Keys; James A Roberts; Virginia L Brunetto; Richard J Zaino; Nick M Spirtos; Jeffrey D Bloss; Andrew Pearlman; Mitchell A Maiman; Jeffrey G Bell Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Tjalling Bosse; David N Church; Inge C van Gool; Florine A Eggink; Luke Freeman-Mills; Ellen Stelloo; Emanuele Marchi; Marco de Bruyn; Claire Palles; Remi A Nout; Cor D de Kroon; Elisabeth M Osse; Paul Klenerman; Carien L Creutzberg; Ian Pm Tomlinson; Vincent Thbm Smit; Hans W Nijman Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2015-04-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Deborah F DeLair; Kathleen A Burke; Pier Selenica; Raymond S Lim; Sasinya N Scott; Sumit Middha; Abhinita S Mohanty; Donavan T Cheng; Michael F Berger; Robert A Soslow; Britta Weigelt Journal: J Pathol Date: 2017-09-05 Impact factor: 7.996
Authors: Min Yuen Teo; Richard M Bambury; Emily C Zabor; Emmet Jordan; Hikmat Al-Ahmadie; Mariel E Boyd; Nancy Bouvier; Stephanie A Mullane; Eugene K Cha; Nitin Roper; Irina Ostrovnaya; David M Hyman; Bernard H Bochner; Maria E Arcila; David B Solit; Michael F Berger; Dean F Bajorin; Joaquim Bellmunt; Gopakumar Iyer; Jonathan E Rosenberg Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2017-01-30 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Marina Stasenko; Irina Tunnage; Charles W Ashley; Maria M Rubinstein; Alicia J Latham; Arnaud Da Cruz Paula; Jennifer J Mueller; Mario M Leitao; Claire F Friedman; Vicky Makker; Robert A Soslow; Deborah F DeLair; David M Hyman; Dimitriy Zamarin; Kaled M Alektiar; Carol A Aghajanian; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Britta Weigelt; Karen A Cadoo Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2019-11-19 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Florine A Eggink; Inge C Van Gool; Alexandra Leary; Pamela M Pollock; Emma J Crosbie; Linda Mileshkin; Ekaterina S Jordanova; Julien Adam; Luke Freeman-Mills; David N Church; Carien L Creutzberg; Marco De Bruyn; Hans W Nijman; Tjalling Bosse Journal: Oncoimmunology Date: 2016-12-09 Impact factor: 8.110
Authors: Sara Imboden; Denis Nastic; Mehran Ghaderi; Filippa Rydberg; Tilman T Rau; Michael D Mueller; Elisabeth Epstein; Joseph W Carlson Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-03-27 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Niamh Conlon; Arnaud Da Cruz Paula; Charles W Ashley; Sheila Segura; Louise De Brot; Edaise M da Silva; Robert A Soslow; Britta Weigelt; Deborah F DeLair Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2020-05 Impact factor: 6.298