PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to identify the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) features of uterine endometrial carcinoma (EC) with DNA mismatch repair (MMR) deficiency. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective study approved by our institutional review board. The study included 118 patients pathologically diagnosed as having EC in our institution from April 2014 to December 2016. Of 118 patients, 8 were excluded because of insufficient data. Immunohistochemical analysis of MMR was performed retrospectively to observe the expressions of MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2. A tumor with MMR deficiency was detected in 17 of 110 cases (15%). Clinical background characteristics and MRI findings were reviewed. These findings were compared between MMR deficiency group and the other group as a control group. Statistical significance was determined using the Fisher's exact test and the Mann-Whitney U test, as appropriate. RESULTS: The clinical background characteristics of patients with EC with MMR deficiency were not significantly different from those of other patients. On MRI, the tumor was significantly more often located in the lower uterine site (MMR(-) vs. MMR(+): 29.4 vs. 8.9% [p = 0.0366]). CONCLUSION: EC with MMR deficiency tends to be located lower in the uterus, though most other findings were not significantly different from those of EC without MMR deficiency.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to identify the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) features of uterine endometrial carcinoma (EC) with DNA mismatch repair (MMR) deficiency. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective study approved by our institutional review board. The study included 118 patients pathologically diagnosed as having EC in our institution from April 2014 to December 2016. Of 118 patients, 8 were excluded because of insufficient data. Immunohistochemical analysis of MMR was performed retrospectively to observe the expressions of MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2. A tumor with MMR deficiency was detected in 17 of 110 cases (15%). Clinical background characteristics and MRI findings were reviewed. These findings were compared between MMR deficiency group and the other group as a control group. Statistical significance was determined using the Fisher's exact test and the Mann-Whitney U test, as appropriate. RESULTS: The clinical background characteristics of patients with EC with MMR deficiency were not significantly different from those of other patients. On MRI, the tumor was significantly more often located in the lower uterine site (MMR(-) vs. MMR(+): 29.4 vs. 8.9% [p = 0.0366]). CONCLUSION: EC with MMR deficiency tends to be located lower in the uterus, though most other findings were not significantly different from those of EC without MMR deficiency.
Authors: Henry T Lynch; Albert de la Chapelle; Heather Hampel; Anja Wagner; Riccardo Fodde; Jane F Lynch; Ross Okimoto; Mary Beth Clark; Stephanie Coronel; Abdon Trowonou; Yun-Xin Fu; Gleb R Haynatzki; Gordon Gong Journal: Cancer Date: 2006-01-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Paul Ryan; Anna Marie Mulligan; Melyssa Aronson; Sarah E Ferguson; Bharati Bapat; Kara Semotiuk; Spring Holter; Janice Kwon; Steve E Kalloger; C Blake Gilks; Steven Gallinger; Aaron Pollett; Blaise A Clarke Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-06-30 Impact factor: 6.860
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: María Rodríguez-Soler; Lucía Pérez-Carbonell; Carla Guarinos; Pedro Zapater; Adela Castillejo; Victor M Barberá; Miriam Juárez; Xavier Bessa; Rosa M Xicola; Juan Clofent; Luis Bujanda; Francesc Balaguer; Josep-Maria Reñé; Luisa de-Castro; José C Marín-Gabriel; Angel Lanas; Joaquín Cubiella; David Nicolás-Pérez; Alejandro Brea-Fernández; Sergi Castellví-Bel; Cristina Alenda; Clara Ruiz-Ponte; Angel Carracedo; Antoni Castells; Montserrat Andreu; Xavier Llor; José L Soto; Artemio Payá; Rodrigo Jover Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2013-01-24 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Sarah E Ferguson; Melyssa Aronson; Aaron Pollett; Lua R Eiriksson; Amit M Oza; Steven Gallinger; Jordan Lerner-Ellis; Zahra Alvandi; Marcus Q Bernardini; Helen J MacKay; Golnessa Mojtahedi; Alicia A Tone; Christine Massey; Blaise A Clarke Journal: Cancer Date: 2014-07-31 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Sigurdis Haraldsdottir; Heather Hampel; Jerneja Tomsic; Wendy L Frankel; Rachel Pearlman; Albert de la Chapelle; Colin C Pritchard Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2014-09-03 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Prisca O Adejumo; Toyin I G Aniagwu; Olutosin A Awolude; Abiodun O Oni; Olubunmi O Ajayi; Omolara Fagbenle; Dasola Ogungbade; Makayla Kochheiser; Temidayo Ogundiran; Olufunmilayo I Olopade Journal: Ecancermedicalscience Date: 2021-09-07