D Scott McMeekin1, David L Tritchler1, David E Cohn1, David G Mutch1, Heather A Lankes1, Melissa A Geller1, Matthew A Powell1, Floor J Backes1, Lisa M Landrum1, Richard Zaino1, Russell D Broaddus1, Nilsa Ramirez1, Feng Gao1, Shamshad Ali1, Kathleen M Darcy1, Michael L Pearl1, Paul A DiSilvestro1, Shashikant B Lele1, Paul J Goodfellow2. 1. D. Scott McMeekin and Lisa M. Landrum, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK; David L. Tritchler, Heather A. Lankes, and Shamshad Ali, NRG Oncology Statistics and Data Management Center; Shashikant B. Lele, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo; Michael L. Pearl, Stony Brook University Hospital, Stony Brook, NY; David E. Cohn, Floor J. Backes, and Paul J. Goodfellow, The Ohio State University; Nilsa Ramirez, Research Institute at Nationwide Children's Hospital, Columbus, OH; David G. Mutch, Matthew A. Powell, and Feng Gao, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO; Melissa A. Geller, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN; Richard Zaino, Penn State Milton S. Hersey Medical Center, Hershey, PA; Russell D. Broaddus, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Kathleen M. Darcy, Women's Health Integrated Research Collective, Annandale, VA; and Paul A. DiSilvestro, Women and Infants Hospital of Rhode Island, Providence, RI. 2. D. Scott McMeekin and Lisa M. Landrum, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK; David L. Tritchler, Heather A. Lankes, and Shamshad Ali, NRG Oncology Statistics and Data Management Center; Shashikant B. Lele, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo; Michael L. Pearl, Stony Brook University Hospital, Stony Brook, NY; David E. Cohn, Floor J. Backes, and Paul J. Goodfellow, The Ohio State University; Nilsa Ramirez, Research Institute at Nationwide Children's Hospital, Columbus, OH; David G. Mutch, Matthew A. Powell, and Feng Gao, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO; Melissa A. Geller, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN; Richard Zaino, Penn State Milton S. Hersey Medical Center, Hershey, PA; Russell D. Broaddus, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Kathleen M. Darcy, Women's Health Integrated Research Collective, Annandale, VA; and Paul A. DiSilvestro, Women and Infants Hospital of Rhode Island, Providence, RI. paul.goodfellow@osumc.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The clinicopathologic significance of mismatch repair (MMR) defects in endometrioid endometrial cancer (EEC) has not been definitively established. We undertook tumor typing to classify MMR defects to determine if MMR status is prognostic or predictive. METHODS: Primary EECs from NRG/GOG0210 patients were assessed for microsatellite instability (MSI), MLH1 methylation, and MMR protein expression. Each tumor was assigned to one of four MMR classes: normal, epigenetic defect, probable mutation (MMR defect not attributable to MLH1 methylation), or MSI-low. The relationships between MMR classes and clinicopathologic variables were assessed using contingency table tests and Cox proportional hazard models. RESULTS: A total of 1,024 tumors were assigned to MMR classes. Epigenetic and probable mutations in MMR were significantly associated with higher grade and more frequent lymphovascular space invasion. Epigenetic defects were more common in patients with higher International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage. Overall, there were no differences in outcomes. Progression-free survival was, however, worse for women whose tumors had epigenetic MMR defects compared with the MMR normal group (hazard ratio, 1.37; P < .05; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.86). An exploratory analysis of interaction between MMR status and adjuvant therapy showed a trend toward improved progression-free survival for probable MMR mutation cases. CONCLUSION: MMR defects in EECs are associated with a number of well-established poor prognostic indicators. Women with tumors that had MMR defects were likely to have higher-grade cancers and more frequent lymphovascular space invasion. Surprisingly, outcomes in these patients were similar to patients with MMR normal tumors, suggesting that MMR defects may counteract the effects of negative prognostic factors. Altered immune surveillance of MMR-deficient tumors, and other host/tumor interactions, is likely to determine outcomes for patients with MMR-deficient tumors.
PURPOSE: The clinicopathologic significance of mismatch repair (MMR) defects in endometrioid endometrial cancer (EEC) has not been definitively established. We undertook tumor typing to classify MMR defects to determine if MMR status is prognostic or predictive. METHODS: Primary EECs from NRG/GOG0210 patients were assessed for microsatellite instability (MSI), MLH1 methylation, and MMR protein expression. Each tumor was assigned to one of four MMR classes: normal, epigenetic defect, probable mutation (MMR defect not attributable to MLH1 methylation), or MSI-low. The relationships between MMR classes and clinicopathologic variables were assessed using contingency table tests and Cox proportional hazard models. RESULTS: A total of 1,024 tumors were assigned to MMR classes. Epigenetic and probable mutations in MMR were significantly associated with higher grade and more frequent lymphovascular space invasion. Epigenetic defects were more common in patients with higher International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage. Overall, there were no differences in outcomes. Progression-free survival was, however, worse for women whose tumors had epigenetic MMR defects compared with the MMR normal group (hazard ratio, 1.37; P < .05; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.86). An exploratory analysis of interaction between MMR status and adjuvant therapy showed a trend toward improved progression-free survival for probable MMR mutation cases. CONCLUSION: MMR defects in EECs are associated with a number of well-established poor prognostic indicators. Women with tumors that had MMR defects were likely to have higher-grade cancers and more frequent lymphovascular space invasion. Surprisingly, outcomes in these patients were similar to patients with MMR normal tumors, suggesting that MMR defects may counteract the effects of negative prognostic factors. Altered immune surveillance of MMR-deficient tumors, and other host/tumor interactions, is likely to determine outcomes for patients with MMR-deficient tumors.
Authors: R Dolcetti; A Viel; C Doglioni; A Russo; M Guidoboni; E Capozzi; N Vecchiato; E Macrì; M Fornasarig; M Boiocchi Journal: Am J Pathol Date: 1999-06 Impact factor: 4.307
Authors: Destin Black; Robert A Soslow; Douglas A Levine; Carmen Tornos; Shirley C Chen; Amanda J Hummer; Faina Bogomolniy; Narciso Olvera; Richard R Barakat; Jeff Boyd Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-03-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Alison J Whelan; Sheri Babb; David G Mutch; Janet Rader; Thomas J Herzog; Christina Todd; Jennifer L Ivanovich; Paul J Goodfellow Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2002-06-10 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Paul J Goodfellow; Caroline C Billingsley; Heather A Lankes; Shamshad Ali; David E Cohn; Russell J Broaddus; Nilsa Ramirez; Colin C Pritchard; Heather Hampel; Alexis S Chassen; Luke V Simmons; Amy P Schmidt; Feng Gao; Louise A Brinton; Floor Backes; Lisa M Landrum; Melissa A Geller; Paul A DiSilvestro; Michael L Pearl; Shashikant B Lele; Matthew A Powell; Richard J Zaino; David Mutch Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-11-09 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Casey M Cosgrove; David E Cohn; Heather Hampel; Wendy L Frankel; Dan Jones; Joseph P McElroy; Adrian A Suarez; Weiqiang Zhao; Wei Chen; Ritu Salani; Larry J Copeland; David M O'Malley; Jeffrey M Fowler; Ahmet Yilmaz; Alexis S Chassen; Rachel Pearlman; Paul J Goodfellow; Floor J Backes Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2017-07-11 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Carol Aghajanian; Virginia Filiaci; Don S Dizon; Jay W Carlson; Matthew A Powell; Angeles Alvarez Secord; Krishnansu S Tewari; David P Bender; David M O'Malley; Ashley Stuckey; JianJiong Gao; Fanny Dao; Robert A Soslow; Heather A Lankes; Kathleen Moore; Douglas A Levine Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2018-05-24 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Casey M Cosgrove; David L Tritchler; David E Cohn; David G Mutch; Craig M Rush; Heather A Lankes; William T Creasman; David S Miller; Nilsa C Ramirez; Melissa A Geller; Matthew A Powell; Floor J Backes; Lisa M Landrum; Cynthia Timmers; Adrian A Suarez; Richard J Zaino; Michael L Pearl; Paul A DiSilvestro; Shashikant B Lele; Paul J Goodfellow Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2017-11-11 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Tjalling Bosse; Remi A Nout; Jessica N McAlpine; Melissa K McConechy; Heidi Britton; Yaser R Hussein; Carlene Gonzalez; Raji Ganesan; Jane C Steele; Beth T Harrison; Esther Oliva; August Vidal; Xavier Matias-Guiu; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Douglas A Levine; C Blake Gilks; Robert A Soslow Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2018-05 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: Marisa R Moroney; Kurtis D Davies; Adam C Wilberger; Jeanelle Sheeder; Miriam D Post; Amber A Berning; Christine Fisher; Carolyn Lefkowits; Saketh R Guntupalli; Kian Behbakht; Bradley R Corr Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2019-03-22 Impact factor: 5.482