Literature DB >> 32205482

Endometrial Carcinomas with a "Serous" Component in Young Women Are Enriched for DNA Mismatch Repair Deficiency, Lynch Syndrome, and POLE Exonuclease Domain Mutations.

Niamh Conlon1,2, Arnaud Da Cruz Paula3, Charles W Ashley3, Sheila Segura1, Louise De Brot1,4, Edaise M da Silva1, Robert A Soslow1, Britta Weigelt1, Deborah F DeLair1,5.   

Abstract

Endometrial carcinoma (EC), as described by Bokhman, has historically been classified as Type I (low-grade, hormone-dependant, young patients, good prognosis) or Type II (high-grade, hormone-independent, older patients, poor prognosis). This classification is no longer pragmatic, however, as EC is a much more heterogeneous disease. Four molecular subtypes of EC were identified by The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA), and subsequent studies have demonstrated its utility in predicting prognosis. While endometrial serous carcinoma (ESC), the prototypical Type II EC, largely occurs in older women, younger women with ESC were not accounted for in the Bokhman model and were underrepresented in the TCGA study. We hypothesized that a subset of ESCs in young patients do not represent bona fide serous carcinomas but rather high-grade endometrioid carcinomas mimicking a serous phenotype. We identified ESCs and mixed endometrioid/serous carcinomas in women <60 years (n=37), and analyzed their clinical, morphologic, immunohistochemical, and molecular characteristics. Sixteen percent showed mismatch repair deficiency (MMR-D) and 11% were diagnosed with Lynch syndrome. Additionally, 16% of cases tested harbored a hotspot POLE exonuclease domain mutation (POLE-EDM). Morphologically, 47% of tumors showed confirmatory endometrioid features, including atypical hyperplasia, a low-grade endometrioid carcinoma component, or squamous differentiation. Clinically, the overall survival in patients with MMR-D and POLE-EDM was significantly better than that of patients without these features (P=0.0329). In conclusion, ESCs in young patients comprise a heterogeneous group of tumors, demonstrating diverse clinical, immunohistochemical, morphologic, and molecular features which have implications for prognosis and adjuvant therapy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32205482      PMCID: PMC7156312          DOI: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000001461

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol        ISSN: 0147-5185            Impact factor:   6.298


  34 in total

1.  Clinicopathological analysis of endometrial carcinomas harboring somatic POLE exonuclease domain mutations.

Authors:  Yaser R Hussein; Britta Weigelt; Douglas A Levine; J Kenneth Schoolmeester; Linda N Dao; Bonnie L Balzer; Georgia Liles; Beth Karlan; Martin Köbel; Cheng-Han Lee; Robert A Soslow
Journal:  Mod Pathol       Date:  2014-11-14       Impact factor: 7.842

2.  Reproducibility of histological cell type in high-grade endometrial carcinoma.

Authors:  Guangming Han; Davinder Sidhu; Máire A Duggan; Jocelyne Arseneau; Matthew Cesari; Philip B Clement; Carol A Ewanowich; Steve E Kalloger; Martin Köbel
Journal:  Mod Pathol       Date:  2013-06-28       Impact factor: 7.842

3.  Pathologic scoring of PTEN immunohistochemistry in endometrial carcinoma is highly reproducible.

Authors:  Karuna Garg; Russell R Broaddus; Robert A Soslow; Diana L Urbauer; Douglas A Levine; Bojana Djordjevic
Journal:  Int J Gynecol Pathol       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 2.762

4.  Lynch syndrome--related endometrial carcinomas show a high frequency of nonendometrioid types and of high FIGO grade endometrioid types.

Authors:  Maria Luisa Carcangiu; Paolo Radice; Patrizia Casalini; Lucio Bertario; Marina Merola; Paolo Sala
Journal:  Int J Surg Pathol       Date:  2009-05-14       Impact factor: 1.271

5.  Two pathogenetic types of endometrial carcinoma.

Authors:  J V Bokhman
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  1983-02       Impact factor: 5.482

Review 6.  Lynch syndrome (hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer) and endometrial carcinoma.

Authors:  K Garg; R A Soslow
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 3.411

7.  Molecular classification of endometrial carcinoma on diagnostic specimens is highly concordant with final hysterectomy: Earlier prognostic information to guide treatment.

Authors:  Aline Talhouk; Lien N Hoang; Melissa K McConechy; Quentin Nakonechny; Joyce Leo; Angela Cheng; Samuel Leung; Winnie Yang; Amy Lum; Martin Köbel; Cheng-Han Lee; Robert A Soslow; David G Huntsman; C Blake Gilks; Jessica N McAlpine
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2016-07-14       Impact factor: 5.482

8.  TP53 Mutational Spectrum in Endometrioid and Serous Endometrial Cancers.

Authors:  Anne M Schultheis; Luciano G Martelotto; Maria R De Filippo; Salvatore Piscuglio; Charlotte K Y Ng; Yaser R Hussein; Jorge S Reis-Filho; Robert A Soslow; Britta Weigelt
Journal:  Int J Gynecol Pathol       Date:  2016-07       Impact factor: 2.762

9.  A clinically applicable molecular-based classification for endometrial cancers.

Authors:  A Talhouk; M K McConechy; S Leung; H H Li-Chang; J S Kwon; N Melnyk; W Yang; J Senz; N Boyd; A N Karnezis; D G Huntsman; C B Gilks; J N McAlpine
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2015-06-30       Impact factor: 7.640

10.  Sensitive detection of somatic point mutations in impure and heterogeneous cancer samples.

Authors:  Kristian Cibulskis; Michael S Lawrence; Scott L Carter; Andrey Sivachenko; David Jaffe; Carrie Sougnez; Stacey Gabriel; Matthew Meyerson; Eric S Lander; Gad Getz
Journal:  Nat Biotechnol       Date:  2013-02-10       Impact factor: 54.908

View more
  10 in total

Review 1.  Prognostic value of the TCGA molecular classification in uterine carcinosarcoma.

Authors:  Antonio Travaglino; Antonio Raffone; Diego Raimondo; Damiano Arciuolo; Giuseppe Angelico; Michele Valente; Giulia Scaglione; Nicoletta D'alessandris; Paolo Casadio; Frediano Inzani; Antonio Mollo; Angela Santoro; Renato Seracchioli; Gian Franco Zannoni
Journal:  Int J Gynaecol Obstet       Date:  2021-10-11       Impact factor: 4.447

2.  The presence of an endometrioid component does not alter the clinicopathologic profile or survival of patients with uterine serous cancer: A gynecologic oncology group (GOG/NRG) study of 934 women.

Authors:  Ian S Hagemann; Wei Deng; Richard J Zaino; Matthew A Powell; Camille Gunderson; Casey Cosgrove; Cara Mathews; Michael L Pearl; Steven Waggoner; Rahel Ghebre; Shashikant Lele; Saketh Guntupalli; Angeles Alvarez Secord; Olga Ioffe; Kay Park; Golnar Rasty; Meenakshi Singh; Robert Soslow; William Creasman; David G Mutch
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2021-01-08       Impact factor: 5.482

Review 3.  Current Prognostic and Predictive Biomarkers for Endometrial Cancer in Clinical Practice: Recommendations/Proposal from the Italian Study Group.

Authors:  Gian Franco Zannoni; Emma Bragantini; Francesca Castiglione; Matteo Fassan; Giancarlo Troncone; Frediano Inzani; Anna Pesci; Angela Santoro; Filippo Fraggetta
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-04-08       Impact factor: 5.738

Review 4.  Prognostic significance of CTNNB1 mutation in early stage endometrial carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Renato Seracchioli; Antonio Mollo; Antonio Travaglino; Antonio Raffone; Diego Raimondo; Sabrina Reppuccia; Alessandro Ruggiero; Alessandro Arena; Paolo Casadio; Fulvio Zullo; Luigi Insabato
Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet       Date:  2022-01-16       Impact factor: 2.493

5.  A new strategy in molecular typing: the accuracy of an NGS panel for the molecular classification of endometrial cancers.

Authors:  Yang Li; Junnan Feng; Chengzhi Zhao; Lin Meng; Shanshan Shi; Kangdong Liu; Jie Ma
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2022-08

Review 6.  The evolving role of morphology in endometrial cancer diagnostics: From histopathology and molecular testing towards integrative data analysis by deep learning.

Authors:  Sarah Fremond; Viktor Hendrik Koelzer; Nanda Horeweg; Tjalling Bosse
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-08-18       Impact factor: 5.738

Review 7.  TCGA Molecular Prognostic Groups of Endometrial Carcinoma: Current Knowledge and Future Perspectives.

Authors:  Damiano Arciuolo; Antonio Travaglino; Antonio Raffone; Diego Raimondo; Angela Santoro; Daniela Russo; Silvia Varricchio; Paolo Casadio; Frediano Inzani; Renato Seracchioli; Antonio Mollo; Massimo Mascolo; Gian Franco Zannoni
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2022-10-02       Impact factor: 6.208

8.  Claudin‑9 is a novel prognostic biomarker for endometrial cancer.

Authors:  Yuta Endo; Kotaro Sugimoto; Makoto Kobayashi; Yasuyuki Kobayashi; Manabu Kojima; Shigenori Furukawa; Shu Soeda; Takafumi Watanabe; Atsuko Y Higashi; Tomohito Higashi; Yuko Hashimoto; Keiya Fujimori; Hideki Chiba
Journal:  Int J Oncol       Date:  2022-09-21       Impact factor: 5.884

9.  Genetic and molecular subtype heterogeneity in newly diagnosed early- and advanced-stage endometrial cancer.

Authors:  Arnaud Da Cruz Paula; Deborah F DeLair; Lorenzo Ferrando; Daniel J Fix; Robert A Soslow; Kay J Park; Sarah Chiang; Jorge S Reis-Filho; Ahmet Zehir; Mark T A Donoghue; Michelle Wu; David N Brown; Rajmohan Murali; Claire F Friedman; Dmitriy Zamarin; Vicky Makker; Jennifer J Mueller; Mario M Leitao; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Carol Aghajanian; Britta Weigelt
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2021-02-21       Impact factor: 5.482

Review 10.  New Pathological and Clinical Insights in Endometrial Cancer in View of the Updated ESGO/ESTRO/ESP Guidelines.

Authors:  Angela Santoro; Giuseppe Angelico; Antonio Travaglino; Frediano Inzani; Damiano Arciuolo; Michele Valente; Nicoletta D'Alessandris; Giulia Scaglione; Vincenzo Fiorentino; Antonio Raffone; Gian Franco Zannoni
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2021-05-26       Impact factor: 6.639

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.