Literature DB >> 29505428

Molecular Classification of Grade 3 Endometrioid Endometrial Cancers Identifies Distinct Prognostic Subgroups.

Tjalling Bosse1, Remi A Nout1, Jessica N McAlpine2, Melissa K McConechy3, Heidi Britton3, Yaser R Hussein4, Carlene Gonzalez4, Raji Ganesan5, Jane C Steele5, Beth T Harrison6, Esther Oliva6, August Vidal7, Xavier Matias-Guiu7, Nadeem R Abu-Rustum8, Douglas A Levine8, C Blake Gilks3, Robert A Soslow4.   

Abstract

Our aim was to investigate whether molecular classification can be used to refine prognosis in grade 3 endometrial endometrioid carcinomas (EECs). Grade 3 EECs were classified into 4 subgroups: p53 abnormal, based on mutant-like immunostaining (p53abn); MMR deficient, based on loss of mismatch repair protein expression (MMRd); presence of POLE exonuclease domain hotspot mutation (POLE); no specific molecular profile (NSMP), in which none of these aberrations were present. Overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) rates were compared using the Kaplan-Meier method (Log-rank test) and univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazard models. In total, 381 patients were included. The median age was 66 years (range, 33 to 96 y). Federation Internationale de Gynecologie et d'Obstetrique stages (2009) were as follows: IA, 171 (44.9%); IB, 120 (31.5%); II, 24 (6.3%); III, 50 (13.1%); IV, 11 (2.9%). There were 49 (12.9%) POLE, 79 (20.7%) p53abn, 115 (30.2%) NSMP, and 138 (36.2%) MMRd tumors. Median follow-up of patients was 6.1 years (range, 0.2 to 17.0 y). Compared to patients with NSMP, patients with POLE mutant grade 3 EEC (OS: hazard ratio [HR], 0.36 [95% confidence interval, 0.18-0.70]; P=0.003; RFS: HR, 0.17 [0.05-0.54]; P=0.003) had a significantly better prognosis; patients with p53abn tumors had a significantly worse RFS (HR, 1.73 [1.09-2.74]; P=0.021); patients with MMRd tumors showed a trend toward better RFS. Estimated 5-year OS rates were as follows: POLE 89%, MMRd 75%, NSMP 69%, p53abn 55% (Log rank P=0.001). Five-year RFS rates were as follows: POLE 96%, MMRd 77%, NSMP 64%, p53abn 47% (P=0.000001), respectively. In a multivariable Cox model that included age and Federation Internationale de Gynecologie et d'Obstetrique stage, POLE and MMRd status remained independent prognostic factors for better RFS; p53 status was an independent prognostic factor for worse RFS. Molecular classification of grade 3 EECs reveals that these tumors are a mixture of molecular subtypes of endometrial carcinoma, rather than a homogeneous group. The addition of molecular markers identifies prognostic subgroups, with potential therapeutic implications.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29505428      PMCID: PMC5893364          DOI: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000001020

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol        ISSN: 0147-5185            Impact factor:   6.394


  27 in total

Review 1.  Molecular approaches for classifying endometrial carcinoma.

Authors:  Josep M Piulats; Esther Guerra; Marta Gil-Martín; Berta Roman-Canal; Sonia Gatius; Rebeca Sanz-Pamplona; Ana Velasco; August Vidal; Xavier Matias-Guiu
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2016-12-29       Impact factor: 5.482

2.  Detection of DNA mismatch repair (MMR) deficiencies by immunohistochemistry can effectively diagnose the microsatellite instability (MSI) phenotype in endometrial carcinomas.

Authors:  M K McConechy; A Talhouk; H H Li-Chang; S Leung; D G Huntsman; C B Gilks; J N McAlpine
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2015-01-28       Impact factor: 5.482

3.  Practical guidance for mismatch repair-deficiency testing in endometrial cancer.

Authors:  E Stelloo; A M L Jansen; E M Osse; R A Nout; C L Creutzberg; D Ruano; D N Church; H Morreau; V T H B M Smit; T van Wezel; T Bosse
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2017-01-01       Impact factor: 32.976

4.  Poor interobserver reproducibility in the diagnosis of high-grade endometrial carcinoma.

Authors:  C Blake Gilks; Esther Oliva; Robert A Soslow
Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 6.394

5.  Histotype-genotype correlation in 36 high-grade endometrial carcinomas.

Authors:  Lien N Hoang; Melissa K McConechy; Martin Köbel; Guangming Han; Marjan Rouzbahman; Ben Davidson; Julie Irving; Rola H Ali; Sam Leung; Jessica N McAlpine; Esther Oliva; Marisa R Nucci; Robert A Soslow; David G Huntsman; C Blake Gilks; Cheng-Han Lee
Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 6.394

6.  Assessment of DNA Ploidy in the ProMisE molecular subgroups of endometrial cancer.

Authors:  L Proctor; M Pradhan; S Leung; A Cheng; C H Lee; R A Soslow; C B Gilks; A Talhouk; J M McAlpine; H E Danielsen; L N Hoang
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2017-06-21       Impact factor: 5.482

7.  Clinical significance of CTNNB1 mutation and Wnt pathway activation in endometrioid endometrial carcinoma.

Authors:  Yuexin Liu; Lalit Patel; Gordon B Mills; Karen H Lu; Anil K Sood; Li Ding; Raju Kucherlapati; Elaine R Mardis; Douglas A Levine; Ilya Shmulevich; Russell R Broaddus; Wei Zhang
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2014-09-10       Impact factor: 13.506

8.  Routinely assessed morphological features correlate with microsatellite instability status in endometrial cancer.

Authors:  Jinru Shia; Destin Black; Amanda J Hummer; Jeff Boyd; Robert A Soslow
Journal:  Hum Pathol       Date:  2007-10-18       Impact factor: 3.466

9.  Histopathological features of endometrial carcinomas associated with POLE mutations: implications for decisions about adjuvant therapy.

Authors:  Salwa Bakhsh; Mary Kinloch; Lien N Hoang; Robert A Soslow; Martin Köbel; Cheng-Han Lee; Jessica N McAlpine; Melissa K McConechy; C Blake Gilks
Journal:  Histopathology       Date:  2015-12-17       Impact factor: 5.087

10.  POLE Proofreading Mutations Elicit an Antitumor Immune Response in Endometrial Cancer.

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

View more
  60 in total

1.  Relevance of pathologic features in risk stratification for early-stage endometrial cancer.

Authors:  Esther Guerra; Xavier Matias-Guiu
Journal:  J Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2021-07       Impact factor: 4.401

2.  TCGA Classification of Endometrial Cancer: the Place of Carcinosarcoma.

Authors:  Antonio Travaglino; Antonio Raffone; Annarita Gencarelli; Antonio Mollo; Maurizio Guida; Luigi Insabato; Angela Santoro; Gian Franco Zannoni; Fulvio Zullo
Journal:  Pathol Oncol Res       Date:  2020-05-29       Impact factor: 3.201

3.  Immunohistochemical and selected genetic reflex testing of all uterine leiomyosarcomas and STUMPs for ALK gene rearrangement may provide an effective screening tool in identifying uterine ALK-rearranged mesenchymal tumors.

Authors:  Nikola Ptáková; Markéta Miesbauerová; Ján Kosťun; Petr Grossmann; Henrieta Šidlová; Jaroslav Pavelka; Jiří Presl; Reza Alaghehbandan; Jiří Bouda; Ondrej Ondič
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2018-08-16       Impact factor: 4.064

4.  Prognostic impact of histological review of high-grade endometrial carcinomas in a large Danish cohort.

Authors:  Marie Boennelycke; Elke E M Peters; Alicia Léon-Castillo; Vincent T H B M Smit; Tjalling Bosse; Ib Jarle Christensen; Gitte Ørtoft; Claus Høgdall; Estrid Høgdall
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2021-06-11       Impact factor: 4.064

5.  DNA Mismatch Repair-deficient Endometrial Carcinosarcomas Portend Distinct Clinical, Morphologic, and Molecular Features Compared With Traditional Carcinosarcomas.

Authors:  Sheila E Segura; Silvana Pedra Nobre; Yaser R Hussein; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Britta Weigelt; Robert A Soslow; Deborah F DeLair
Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol       Date:  2020-11       Impact factor: 6.394

6.  Clinical outcomes of patients with POLE mutated endometrioid endometrial cancer.

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

Review 7.  Adjuvant chemotherapy in endometrial cancer.

Authors:  César Gómez-Raposo; María Merino Salvador; Cristina Aguayo Zamora; Enrique Casado Saenz
Journal:  Cancer Chemother Pharmacol       Date:  2020-01-16       Impact factor: 3.333

Review 8.  Impact of Molecular Classification on Treatment Paradigms in Uterine Cancers.

Authors:  Casey M Cosgrove; David Barrington; Floor J Backes
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2021-05-03       Impact factor: 5.075

9.  Mismatch repair deficiency and clinicopathological characteristics in endometrial carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Alaa Salah Jumaah; Hawraa Sahib Al-Haddad; Mais Muhammed Salem; Katherine Ann McAllister; Akeel Abed Yasseen
Journal:  J Pathol Transl Med       Date:  2021-04-14

Review 10.  Predictive and Prognostic Value of Microsatellite Instability in Gynecologic Cancer (Endometrial and Ovarian).

Authors:  Camille Evrard; Jérôme Alexandre
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2021-05-18       Impact factor: 6.639

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.