Antonio Raffone1, Antonio Travaglino2, Massimo Mascolo3, Consolata Carotenuto1, Maurizio Guida1, Antonio Mollo4, Luigi Insabato3, Fulvio Zullo1. 1. Gynecology and Obstetrics Unit, Department of Neuroscience, Reproductive Sciences and Dentistry, School of Medicine, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy. 2. Anatomic Pathology Unit, Department of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy. Electronic address: antonio.travaglino.ap@gmail.com. 3. Anatomic Pathology Unit, Department of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy. 4. Gynecology and Obstetrics Unit, Department of Medicine, Surgery and Dentistry, "Scuola Medica Salernitana", University of Salerno, Baronissi, SA, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: After the Proactive Molecular Risk Classifier for Endometrial Cancer (ProMisE) development, endometrial cancer (EC) may be reclassified in four novel prognostic groups: POLE-mutated (POLE-mt), mismatch-repair-deficient (MMR-d), p53-abnormal (p53abn), p53-wild-type (p53wt). However, histopathological characteristics of each ProMisE group are still undefined. Such characterization may be useful to understand how this novel molecular classifier may change the current patient management, reducing over- and undertreatment. AIM: To provide a histopathological characterization of ProMisE groups of EC, in terms of histological grade (G3 vs G1-2), histotype, lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI), deep myometrial invasion (>50%), lymph node involvement, and European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) risk category. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed by searching seven electronic databases from their inception to May 2019, for studies that reported histopathological characteristics of each ProMisE group. Pooled prevalence of each histopathological characteristic of EC in each ProMisE group was calculated. RESULTS: Four studies with 1171 patients were included in the systematic review, out of which three studies with 912 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled prevalence estimates were: CONCLUSIONS: The histopathological characterization of the ProMisE groups suggests that many patients are currently undertreated or overtreated (especially in the POLE-mt and MMR-d groups).
BACKGROUND: After the Proactive Molecular Risk Classifier for Endometrial Cancer (ProMisE) development, endometrial cancer (EC) may be reclassified in four novel prognostic groups: POLE-mutated (POLE-mt), mismatch-repair-deficient (MMR-d), p53-abnormal (p53abn), p53-wild-type (p53wt). However, histopathological characteristics of each ProMisE group are still undefined. Such characterization may be useful to understand how this novel molecular classifier may change the current patient management, reducing over- and undertreatment. AIM: To provide a histopathological characterization of ProMisE groups of EC, in terms of histological grade (G3 vs G1-2), histotype, lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI), deep myometrial invasion (>50%), lymph node involvement, and European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) risk category. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed by searching seven electronic databases from their inception to May 2019, for studies that reported histopathological characteristics of each ProMisE group. Pooled prevalence of each histopathological characteristic of EC in each ProMisE group was calculated. RESULTS: Four studies with 1171 patients were included in the systematic review, out of which three studies with 912 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled prevalence estimates were: CONCLUSIONS: The histopathological characterization of the ProMisE groups suggests that many patients are currently undertreated or overtreated (especially in the POLE-mt and MMR-d groups).
Authors: Sara Imboden; Inti Zlobec; Tilman T Rau; Eva Bettschen; Carol Büchi; Lucine Christe; Amanda Rohner; Michael D Müller; Joseph W Carlson Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2020-07-29 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: Jorge Luis Ramon-Patino; Ignacio Ruz-Caracuel; Victoria Heredia-Soto; Luis Eduardo Garcia de la Calle; Bulat Zagidullin; Yinyin Wang; Alberto Berjon; Alvaro Lopez-Janeiro; Maria Miguel; Javier Escudero; Alejandro Gallego; Beatriz Castelo; Laura Yebenes; Alicia Hernandez; Jaime Feliu; Alberto Pelaez-García; Jing Tang; David Hardisson; Marta Mendiola; Andres Redondo Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-02-12 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Diego Raimondo; Antonio Raffone; Antonio Travaglino; Manuela Maletta; Paolo Casadio; Marco Ambrosio; Anna Chiara Aru; Angela Santoro; Gian Franco Zannoni; Luigi Insabato; Antonio Mollo; Fulvio Zullo; Renato Seracchioli Journal: Int J Gynaecol Obstet Date: 2021-07-18 Impact factor: 4.447
Authors: Camelia Alexandra Coada; Giulia Dondi; Gloria Ravegnini; Antonio De Leo; Donatella Santini; Eugenia De Crescenzo; Marco Tesei; Alessandro Bovicelli; Susanna Giunchi; Ada Dormi; Marco Di Stanislao; Alessio G Morganti; Dario De Biase; Pierandrea De Iaco; Anna Myriam Perrone Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2021-12-24