Marina Stasenko1, Irina Tunnage1, Charles W Ashley2, Maria M Rubinstein3, Alicia J Latham4, Arnaud Da Cruz Paula2, Jennifer J Mueller5, Mario M Leitao5, Claire F Friedman4, Vicky Makker4, Robert A Soslow6, Deborah F DeLair7, David M Hyman4, Dimitriy Zamarin4, Kaled M Alektiar8, Carol A Aghajanian4, Nadeem R Abu-Rustum5, Britta Weigelt6, Karen A Cadoo9. 1. Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 2. Department of Pathology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 3. Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 4. Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA; Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, NY, USA. 5. Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA; Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, NY, USA. 6. Department of Pathology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA; Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, NY, USA. 7. Department of Pathology, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, NY, USA. 8. Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, NY, USA; Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 9. Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA; Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, NY, USA. Electronic address: cadook@mskcc.org.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Assess outcomes of a clinical cohort of patients with endometrioid endometrial cancer (EEC) harboring somatic POLE exonuclease domain mutations (EDMs). METHODS: Patients were consented to a protocol of tumor-normal massively parallel sequencing of 410-468 cancer related genes. EECs subjected to sequencing from 2014 to 2018 were reviewed. Tumors with somatic POLE EDMs were identified. EECs were assessed for microsatellite instability (MSI) using MSIsensor and immunohistochemical analysis for mismatch repair (MMR) proteins. RESULTS: Of the 451 EECs sequenced, 23 had a POLE EDM (5%): 20 primary and 3 recurrent tumors sequenced. Nineteen cases (83%) were stage I/II and 4 (17%) were stages III/IV. Thirteen EECs (57%) were of FIGO grades 1/2, 10 (43%) grade 3. All patients were treated with surgery and 17 (89%) received adjuvant therapy. Five (22%) demonstrated loss of DNA MMR protein expression, none were due to Lynch syndrome. MSIsensor scores were conclusive for 21 samples: 19 were microsatellite stable and 2 MSI-high. After median follow-up of 30 months, 4/23 (17%) developed recurrences: 3 with initial grade 3 stage I and 1 with grade 1 stage III disease. One patient with grade 2 stage IV EEC had progressive disease after treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with POLE EDM EEC have been shown to have a favorable prognosis. In this real-world cohort of patients, de novo metastatic disease and recurrences in initially uterine-confined cases were observed. Further research is warranted before incorporating the presence of POLE EDM into decision-making regarding adjuvant therapy.
OBJECTIVES: Assess outcomes of a clinical cohort of patients with endometrioid endometrial cancer (EEC) harboring somatic POLE exonuclease domain mutations (EDMs). METHODS:Patients were consented to a protocol of tumor-normal massively parallel sequencing of 410-468 cancer related genes. EECs subjected to sequencing from 2014 to 2018 were reviewed. Tumors with somatic POLE EDMs were identified. EECs were assessed for microsatellite instability (MSI) using MSIsensor and immunohistochemical analysis for mismatch repair (MMR) proteins. RESULTS: Of the 451 EECs sequenced, 23 had a POLE EDM (5%): 20 primary and 3 recurrent tumors sequenced. Nineteen cases (83%) were stage I/II and 4 (17%) were stages III/IV. Thirteen EECs (57%) were of FIGO grades 1/2, 10 (43%) grade 3. All patients were treated with surgery and 17 (89%) received adjuvant therapy. Five (22%) demonstrated loss of DNA MMR protein expression, none were due to Lynch syndrome. MSIsensor scores were conclusive for 21 samples: 19 were microsatellite stable and 2 MSI-high. After median follow-up of 30 months, 4/23 (17%) developed recurrences: 3 with initial grade 3 stage I and 1 with grade 1 stage III disease. One patient with grade 2 stage IV EEC had progressive disease after treatment. CONCLUSIONS:Patients with POLE EDM EEC have been shown to have a favorable prognosis. In this real-world cohort of patients, de novo metastatic disease and recurrences in initially uterine-confined cases were observed. Further research is warranted before incorporating the presence of POLE EDM into decision-making regarding adjuvant therapy.
Authors: Alessandro D Santin; Stefania Bellone; Natalia Buza; Jungmin Choi; Peter E Schwartz; Joseph Schlessinger; Richard P Lifton Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2016-08-02 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Diana Mandelker; Liying Zhang; Yelena Kemel; Zsofia K Stadler; Vijai Joseph; Ahmet Zehir; Nisha Pradhan; Angela Arnold; Michael F Walsh; Yirong Li; Anoop R Balakrishnan; Aijazuddin Syed; Meera Prasad; Khedoudja Nafa; Maria I Carlo; Karen A Cadoo; Meg Sheehan; Megan H Fleischut; Erin Salo-Mullen; Magan Trottier; Steven M Lipkin; Anne Lincoln; Semanti Mukherjee; Vignesh Ravichandran; Roy Cambria; Jesse Galle; Wassim Abida; Marcia E Arcila; Ryma Benayed; Ronak Shah; Kenneth Yu; Dean F Bajorin; Jonathan A Coleman; Steven D Leach; Maeve A Lowery; Julio Garcia-Aguilar; Philip W Kantoff; Charles L Sawyers; Maura N Dickler; Leonard Saltz; Robert J Motzer; Eileen M O'Reilly; Howard I Scher; Jose Baselga; David S Klimstra; David B Solit; David M Hyman; Michael F Berger; Marc Ladanyi; Mark E Robson; Kenneth Offit Journal: JAMA Date: 2017-09-05 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Janice M Mehnert; Anshuman Panda; Hua Zhong; Kim Hirshfield; Sherri Damare; Katherine Lane; Levi Sokol; Mark N Stein; Lorna Rodriguez-Rodriquez; Howard L Kaufman; Siraj Ali; Jeffrey S Ross; Dean C Pavlick; Gyan Bhanot; Eileen P White; Robert S DiPaola; Ann Lovell; Jonathan Cheng; Shridar Ganesan Journal: J Clin Invest Date: 2016-05-09 Impact factor: 14.808
Authors: Ahmet Zehir; Jaclyn F Hechtman; Sumit Middha; Liying Zhang; Khedoudja Nafa; Gowtham Jayakumaran; Donna Wong; Hyunjae R Kim; Justyna Sadowska; Michael F Berger; Deborah F Delair; Jinru Shia; Zsofia Stadler; David S Klimstra; Marc Ladanyi Journal: JCO Precis Oncol Date: 2017-10-03
Authors: David N Church; Sarah E W Briggs; Claire Palles; Enric Domingo; Stephen J Kearsey; Jonathon M Grimes; Maggie Gorman; Lynn Martin; Kimberley M Howarth; Shirley V Hodgson; Kulvinder Kaur; Jenny Taylor; Ian P M Tomlinson Journal: Hum Mol Genet Date: 2013-03-24 Impact factor: 6.150
Authors: Jennifer J Mueller; Silvana Pedra Nobre; Kenya Braxton; Kaled M Alektiar; Mario M Leitao; Carol Aghajanian; Lora H Ellenson; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2020-04-01 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Hao-Dong Li; Changzheng Lu; He Zhang; Qing Hu; Junqiu Zhang; Ileana C Cuevas; Subhransu S Sahoo; Mitzi Aguilar; Elizabeth G Maurais; Shanrong Zhang; Xiaojing Wang; Esra A Akbay; Guo-Min Li; Bo Li; Prasad Koduru; Peter Ly; Yang-Xin Fu; Diego H Castrillon Journal: JCI Insight Date: 2020-07-23
Authors: Marina Stasenko; Noah Feit; Simon S K Lee; Cassandra Shepherd; Robert A Soslow; Karen A Cadoo; Kaled Alektiar; Edaise M Da Silva; Ana Paula Martins Sebastião; Mario M Leitao; Ginger Gardner; Pier Selenica; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Britta Weigelt; Jennifer J Mueller Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2020-05-05 Impact factor: 3.437