Aline Talhouk1, Melissa K McConechy2, Samuel Leung3, Winnie Yang1, Amy Lum1, Janine Senz1, Niki Boyd1, Judith Pike4, Michael Anglesio1, Janice S Kwon4, Anthony N Karnezis1, David G Huntsman1, C Blake Gilks5, Jessica N McAlpine4. 1. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of British Columbia and British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 2. Department of Human Genetics, McGill University, Research Institute of the McGill University Health Network, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. 3. Genetic Pathology Evaluation Center, Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 4. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 5. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of British Columbia and Vancouver General Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Classification of endometrial carcinomas (ECs) by morphologic features is irreproducible and imperfectly reflects tumor biology. The authors developed the Proactive Molecular Risk Classifier for Endometrial Cancer (ProMisE), a molecular classification system based on The Cancer Genome Atlas genomic subgroups, and sought to confirm both feasibility and prognostic ability in a new, large cohort of ECs. METHODS: Immunohistochemistry (IHC) for the presence or absence of mismatch repair (MMR) proteins (to identify MMR deficiency [MMR-D]), sequencing for polymerase-ɛ (POLE) exonuclease domain mutations (POLE EDMs), and IHC for tumor protein 53 (p53) (wild type vs null/missense mutations; p53 wt and p53 abn, respectively) were performed on 319 new EC samples. Subgroups were characterized and assessed relative to outcomes. The prognostic ability of ProMisE was compared with that of current risk-stratification systems (European Society of Medical Oncology [ESMO]). RESULTS: ProMisE decision-tree classification achieved categorization of all cases and identified 4 prognostic subgroups with distinct overall, disease-specific, and progression-free survival (P < .001). Tumors with POLE EDMs had the most favorable prognosis, and those with p53 abn the worst prognosis, and separation of the 2 middle survival curves (p53 wt and MMR-D) was observed. There were no significant differences in survival between the ESMO low-risk and intermediate-risk groups. ProMisE improved the ability to discriminate outcomes compared with ESMO risk stratification. There was substantial overlap (89%) between the p53 abn and high-risk ESMO subgroups; but, otherwise, there were no predictable associations between molecular and ESMO risk groups. CONCLUSIONS: Molecular classification of ECs can be achieved using clinically applicable methods and provides independent prognostic information beyond established clinicopathologic risk factors available at diagnosis. Consistent, biologically relevant categorization enables stratification for clinical trials and/or targeted therapy, identification of women who are at increased risk of having Lynch syndrome, and may guide clinical management. Cancer 2017;123:802-13.
BACKGROUND: Classification of endometrial carcinomas (ECs) by morphologic features is irreproducible and imperfectly reflects tumor biology. The authors developed the Proactive Molecular Risk Classifier for Endometrial Cancer (ProMisE), a molecular classification system based on The Cancer Genome Atlas genomic subgroups, and sought to confirm both feasibility and prognostic ability in a new, large cohort of ECs. METHODS: Immunohistochemistry (IHC) for the presence or absence of mismatch repair (MMR) proteins (to identify MMR deficiency [MMR-D]), sequencing for polymerase-ɛ (POLE) exonuclease domain mutations (POLE EDMs), and IHC for tumor protein 53 (p53) (wild type vs null/missense mutations; p53 wt and p53 abn, respectively) were performed on 319 new EC samples. Subgroups were characterized and assessed relative to outcomes. The prognostic ability of ProMisE was compared with that of current risk-stratification systems (European Society of Medical Oncology [ESMO]). RESULTS: ProMisE decision-tree classification achieved categorization of all cases and identified 4 prognostic subgroups with distinct overall, disease-specific, and progression-free survival (P < .001). Tumors with POLE EDMs had the most favorable prognosis, and those with p53 abn the worst prognosis, and separation of the 2 middle survival curves (p53 wt and MMR-D) was observed. There were no significant differences in survival between the ESMO low-risk and intermediate-risk groups. ProMisE improved the ability to discriminate outcomes compared with ESMO risk stratification. There was substantial overlap (89%) between the p53 abn and high-risk ESMO subgroups; but, otherwise, there were no predictable associations between molecular and ESMO risk groups. CONCLUSIONS: Molecular classification of ECs can be achieved using clinically applicable methods and provides independent prognostic information beyond established clinicopathologic risk factors available at diagnosis. Consistent, biologically relevant categorization enables stratification for clinical trials and/or targeted therapy, identification of women who are at increased risk of having Lynch syndrome, and may guide clinical management. Cancer 2017;123:802-13.
Authors: Carlos Parra-Herran; Jordan Lerner-Ellis; Bin Xu; Sam Khalouei; Dina Bassiouny; Matthew Cesari; Nadia Ismiil; Sharon Nofech-Mozes Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2017-08-04 Impact factor: 7.842
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: 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
Authors: Yongchao Dou; Emily A Kawaler; Daniel Cui Zhou; Marina A Gritsenko; Chen Huang; Lili Blumenberg; Alla Karpova; Vladislav A Petyuk; Sara R Savage; Shankha Satpathy; Wenke Liu; Yige Wu; Chia-Feng Tsai; Bo Wen; Zhi Li; Song Cao; Jamie Moon; Zhiao Shi; MacIntosh Cornwell; Matthew A Wyczalkowski; Rosalie K Chu; Suhas Vasaikar; Hua Zhou; Qingsong Gao; Ronald J Moore; Kai Li; Sunantha Sethuraman; Matthew E Monroe; Rui Zhao; David Heiman; Karsten Krug; Karl Clauser; Ramani Kothadia; Yosef Maruvka; Alexander R Pico; Amanda E Oliphant; Emily L Hoskins; Samuel L Pugh; Sean J I Beecroft; David W Adams; Jonathan C Jarman; Andy Kong; Hui-Yin Chang; Boris Reva; Yuxing Liao; Dmitry Rykunov; Antonio Colaprico; Xi Steven Chen; Andrzej Czekański; Marcin Jędryka; Rafał Matkowski; Maciej Wiznerowicz; Tara Hiltke; Emily Boja; Christopher R Kinsinger; Mehdi Mesri; Ana I Robles; Henry Rodriguez; David Mutch; Katherine Fuh; Matthew J Ellis; Deborah DeLair; Mathangi Thiagarajan; D R Mani; Gad Getz; Michael Noble; Alexey I Nesvizhskii; Pei Wang; Matthew L Anderson; Douglas A Levine; Richard D Smith; Samuel H Payne; Kelly V Ruggles; Karin D Rodland; Li Ding; Bing Zhang; Tao Liu; David Fenyö Journal: Cell Date: 2020-02-13 Impact factor: 41.582
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