Literature DB >> 33715893

Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and POLE mutation in endometrial carcinoma.

Antonio Raffone1, Antonio Travaglino2, Diego Raimondo3, Maria Pia Boccellino4, Manuela Maletta5, Giulia Borghese5, Paolo Casadio5, Luigi Insabato6, Antonio Mollo7, Fulvio Zullo4, Renato Seracchioli5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Polymerase-ε (POLE)-mutated endometrial carcinomas (ECs) have displayed an increased number of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL) compared to POLE-wild-type ECs. However, it is unclear if TIL may aid in identifying POLE-mutated ECs when molecular data are unavailable. The identification of a POLE mutation surrogate may be crucial to translate TCGA/ProMisE risk assessment in the clinical practice. AIM: To assess TIL as histological surrogate of POLE mutation in EC.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seven electronic databases were searched from their inception to September 2020 for studies that allowed data extraction about TIL and TCGA/ProMisE groups of EC. We calculated pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR+ and LR-), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) and area under the curve (AUC) on SROC curves of TIL in distinguishing POLE-mutated from i) POLE-wild-type, ii) no specific molecular profile (NSMP), iii) POLE-wild-type/MMR-proficient, iii) MMR-deficient ECs.
RESULTS: 10 studies assessing 1169 women were included in the qualitative analysis. TIL-high pattern showed: sensitivity = 0.65, specificity = 0.63, LR + =2.06, LR- = 0.48, DOR = 4.39, AUC = 0.7532 for POLE-mutant vs POLE-wild-type ECs; sensitivity = 0.85, specificity = 0.73, LR + =2.80, LR- = 0.22, DOR = 15.17 for POLE-mutant vs NSMP ECs; sensitivity = 0.85, specificity = 0.66, LR + =2.49, LR- = 0.25, DOR = 10.30 for POLE-mutant vs POLE-wild-type/MMR-proficient ECs; sensitivity = 0.68, specificity = 0.44, LR + =1.38, LR- = 0.64, DOR = 2.68, AUC = 0.6694 for POLE-mutant vs MMR-deficient ECs.
CONCLUSION: TIL-high pattern shows a moderate accuracy in distinguishing POLE-mutated from POLE-wild-type ECs after the exclusion of MMR-deficient cases. TIL might be considered in an integrate algorithm to identify POLE-mutated ECs when sequencing is unavailable. Further studies are necessary in this regard.
Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Endometrium; Molecular; ProMisE; Prognosis; Risk assessment; Treatment

Year:  2021        PMID: 33715893     DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2021.02.030

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gynecol Oncol        ISSN: 0090-8258            Impact factor:   5.482


  7 in total

1.  Identification of Predictive Biomarkers for Lymph Node Involvement in Obese Women With Endometrial Cancer.

Authors:  Vanessa M López-Ozuna; Liron Kogan; Mahmood Y Hachim; Emad Matanes; Ibrahim Y Hachim; Cristina Mitric; Lauren Liu Chen Kiow; Susie Lau; Shannon Salvador; Amber Yasmeen; Walter H Gotlieb
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2021-07-07       Impact factor: 6.244

Review 2.  Recent Multiomics Approaches in Endometrial Cancer.

Authors:  Dariusz Boroń; Nikola Zmarzły; Magdalena Wierzbik-Strońska; Joanna Rosińczuk; Paweł Mieszczański; Beniamin Oskar Grabarek
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2022-01-22       Impact factor: 5.923

3.  Fertility-Sparing Treatment for Endometrial Cancer or Atypical Endometrial Hyperplasia Patients With Obesity.

Authors:  Junyu Chen; Dongyan Cao; Jiaxin Yang; Mei Yu; Huimei Zhou; Ninghai Cheng; Jinhui Wang; Ying Zhang; Peng Peng; Keng Shen
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-02-18       Impact factor: 6.244

4.  EZH2 and Endometrial Cancer Development: Insights from a Mouse Model.

Authors:  Xin Fang; Nan Ni; Xiaofang Wang; Yanan Tian; Ivan Ivanov; Monique Rijnkels; Kayla J Bayless; John P Lydon; Qinglei Li
Journal:  Cells       Date:  2022-03-07       Impact factor: 7.666

Review 5.  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

6.  Is preoperative ultrasound tumor size a prognostic factor in endometrial carcinoma patients?

Authors:  Marco Ambrosio; Antonio Raffone; Andrea Alletto; Chiara Cini; Francesco Filipponi; Daniele Neola; Matilde Fabbri; Alessandro Arena; Diego Raimondo; Paolo Salucci; Manuela Guerrini; Antonio Travaglino; Roberto Paradisi; Antonio Mollo; Renato Seracchioli; Paolo Casadio
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-09-23       Impact factor: 5.738

7.  Immunohistochemical Markers and TILs Evaluation for Endometrial Carcinoma.

Authors:  Valentina Elisabetta Bounous; Annamaria Ferrero; Paola Campisi; Luca Fuso; Jeremy Oscar Smith Pezua Sanjinez; Sabrina Manassero; Giovanni De Rosa; Nicoletta Biglia
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-09-26       Impact factor: 4.964

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.