Joseph A Dottino1, Qian Zhang1, David S Loose2, Bryan Fellman3, Brenda D Melendez1, Mikayla S Borthwick1, Laurie J McKenzie1, Ying Yuan3, Richard K Yang1, Russell R Broaddus4, Karen H Lu1, Pamela T Soliman1, Melinda S Yates5. 1. Departments of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX. 2. Department of Integrative Biology and Pharmacology, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX. 3. Biostatistics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX. 4. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC. 5. Departments of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX. Electronic address: msyates@mdanderson.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Obesity is a well-known risk factor for endometrial cancer, but the mechanisms of obesity-related carcinogenesis are not well defined, particularly for premenopausal women. With the continuing obesity epidemic, increases in the incidence of endometrial cancer and a younger age of diagnosis are often attributed to a hyperestrogenic state created by hormone production in adipose tissue, but significant knowledge gaps remain. The balance of estrogen-responsive signals has not been defined in the endometrium of premenopausal women with obesity, where obesity may not create hyperestrogenism in the context of ovaries being the primary source of estrogen production. Obesity is associated with a state of low-grade, chronic inflammation that can promote tumorigenesis, and it is also known that hormonal changes alter the immune microenvironment of the endometrium. However, limited research has been conducted on endometrial immune-response changes in women who have an increased risk for cancer due to obesity. OBJECTIVE: Endometrial estrogen-regulated biomarkers, previously shown to be dysregulated in endometrial cancer, were evaluated in a cohort of premenopausal women to determine if obesity is associated with differences in the biomarker expression levels, which might reflect an altered risk of developing cancer. The expression of a multiplexed panel of immune-related genes was also evaluated for expression differences related to obesity. STUDY DESIGN: Premenopausal women with a body mass index of ≥30 kg/m2 (n=97) or a body mass index of ≤25 kg/m2 (n=33) were prospectively enrolled in this cross-sectional study, which included the assessment of serum metabolic markers and a timed endometrial biopsy for pathologic evaluation, hormone-regulated biomarker analysis, and immune response gene expression analysis. Medical and gynecologic histories were obtained. Endometrial gene expression markers were also compared across the body mass index groups in a previous cohort of premenopausal women with an inherited cancer risk (Lynch syndrome). RESULTS: In addition to known systemic metabolic differences, histologically normal endometria from women with obesity showed a decrease in gene expression of progesterone receptor (P=.0027) and the estrogen-induced genes retinaldehyde dehydrogenase 2 (P=.008), insulin-like growth factor 1 (P=.016), and survivin (P=.042) when compared with women without obesity. The endometrial biomarkers insulin-like growth factor 1, survivin, and progesterone receptor remained statistically significant in multivariate linear regression models. In contrast, women with obesity and Lynch syndrome had an increased expression of insulin-like growth factor 1 (P=.017). There were no differences in endometrial proliferation, and limited endometrial immune differences were observed. CONCLUSION: When comparing premenopausal women with and without obesity in the absence of endometrial pathology or an inherited cancer risk, the expression of the endometrial biomarkers does not reflect a local hyperestrogenic environment, but it instead reflects a decreased cancer risk profile that may be indicative of a compensated state. In describing premenopausal endometrial cancer risk, it may be insufficient to attribute a high-risk state to obesity alone; further studies are warranted to evaluate individualized biomarker profiles for differences in the hormone-responsive signals or immune response. In patients with Lynch syndrome, the endometrial biomarker profile suggests that obesity further increases the risk of developing cancer.
BACKGROUND: Obesity is a well-known risk factor for endometrial cancer, but the mechanisms of obesity-related carcinogenesis are not well defined, particularly for premenopausal women. With the continuing obesity epidemic, increases in the incidence of endometrial cancer and a younger age of diagnosis are often attributed to a hyperestrogenic state created by hormone production in adipose tissue, but significant knowledge gaps remain. The balance of estrogen-responsive signals has not been defined in the endometrium of premenopausal women with obesity, where obesity may not create hyperestrogenism in the context of ovaries being the primary source of estrogen production. Obesity is associated with a state of low-grade, chronic inflammation that can promote tumorigenesis, and it is also known that hormonal changes alter the immune microenvironment of the endometrium. However, limited research has been conducted on endometrial immune-response changes in women who have an increased risk for cancer due to obesity. OBJECTIVE: Endometrial estrogen-regulated biomarkers, previously shown to be dysregulated in endometrial cancer, were evaluated in a cohort of premenopausal women to determine if obesity is associated with differences in the biomarker expression levels, which might reflect an altered risk of developing cancer. The expression of a multiplexed panel of immune-related genes was also evaluated for expression differences related to obesity. STUDY DESIGN: Premenopausal women with a body mass index of ≥30 kg/m2 (n=97) or a body mass index of ≤25 kg/m2 (n=33) were prospectively enrolled in this cross-sectional study, which included the assessment of serum metabolic markers and a timed endometrial biopsy for pathologic evaluation, hormone-regulated biomarker analysis, and immune response gene expression analysis. Medical and gynecologic histories were obtained. Endometrial gene expression markers were also compared across the body mass index groups in a previous cohort of premenopausal women with an inherited cancer risk (Lynch syndrome). RESULTS: In addition to known systemic metabolic differences, histologically normal endometria from women with obesity showed a decrease in gene expression of progesterone receptor (P=.0027) and the estrogen-induced genes retinaldehyde dehydrogenase 2 (P=.008), insulin-like growth factor 1 (P=.016), and survivin (P=.042) when compared with women without obesity. The endometrial biomarkers insulin-like growth factor 1, survivin, and progesterone receptor remained statistically significant in multivariate linear regression models. In contrast, women with obesity and Lynch syndrome had an increased expression of insulin-like growth factor 1 (P=.017). There were no differences in endometrial proliferation, and limited endometrial immune differences were observed. CONCLUSION: When comparing premenopausal women with and without obesity in the absence of endometrial pathology or an inherited cancer risk, the expression of the endometrial biomarkers does not reflect a local hyperestrogenic environment, but it instead reflects a decreased cancer risk profile that may be indicative of a compensated state. In describing premenopausal endometrial cancer risk, it may be insufficient to attribute a high-risk state to obesity alone; further studies are warranted to evaluate individualized biomarker profiles for differences in the hormone-responsive signals or immune response. In patients with Lynch syndrome, the endometrial biomarker profile suggests that obesity further increases the risk of developing cancer.
Authors: Lei Deng; Russell R Broaddus; Adrienne McCampbell; Gregory L Shipley; David S Loose; George M Stancel; James H Pickar; Peter J A Davies Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2005-12-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Seyedeh Ghazaleh Dashti; Rowena Chau; Driss Ait Ouakrim; Daniel D Buchanan; Mark Clendenning; Joanne P Young; Ingrid M Winship; Julie Arnold; Dennis J Ahnen; Robert W Haile; Graham Casey; Steven Gallinger; Stephen N Thibodeau; Noralane M Lindor; Loïc Le Marchand; Polly A Newcomb; John D Potter; John A Baron; John L Hopper; Mark A Jenkins; Aung Ko Win Journal: JAMA Date: 2015-07-07 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Lei Deng; Gregory L Shipley; David S Loose-Mitchell; George M Stancel; Russell Broaddus; James H Pickar; Peter J A Davies Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2003-05 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Karen H Lu; David S Loose; Melinda S Yates; Graciela M Nogueras-Gonzalez; Mark F Munsell; Lee-May Chen; Henry Lynch; Terri Cornelison; Stephanie Boyd-Rogers; Mary Rubin; Molly S Daniels; Peggy Conrad; Andrea Milbourne; David M Gershenson; Russell R Broaddus Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2013-05-02
Authors: Pål Møller; Toni T Seppälä; Inge Bernstein; Elke Holinski-Feder; Paulo Sala; D Gareth Evans; Annika Lindblom; Finlay Macrae; Ignacio Blanco; Rolf H Sijmons; Jacqueline Jeffries; Hans F A Vasen; John Burn; Sigve Nakken; Eivind Hovig; Einar Andreas Rødland; Kukatharmini Tharmaratnam; Wouter H de Vos Tot Nederveen Cappel; James Hill; Juul T Wijnen; Mark A Jenkins; Kate Green; Fiona Lalloo; Lone Sunde; Miriam Mints; Lucio Bertario; Marta Pineda; Matilde Navarro; Monika Morak; Laura Renkonen-Sinisalo; Mev Dominguez Valentin; Ian M Frayling; John-Paul Plazzer; Kirsi Pylvanainen; Maurizio Genuardi; Jukka-Pekka Mecklin; Gabriela Moeslein; Julian R Sampson; Gabriel Capella Journal: Gut Date: 2017-07-28 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Jo Vandesompele; Katleen De Preter; Filip Pattyn; Bruce Poppe; Nadine Van Roy; Anne De Paepe; Frank Speleman Journal: Genome Biol Date: 2002-06-18 Impact factor: 13.583