Casey M Cosgrove1, David Barrington1, Floor J Backes2. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, The James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute, M-210 Starling-Loving, 320 West 10th Avenue, Columbus, OH, 43210-3078, USA. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, The James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute, M-210 Starling-Loving, 320 West 10th Avenue, Columbus, OH, 43210-3078, USA. Floor.backes@osumc.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This article will discuss the recent data on the prognostic significance of molecular classification of endometrial carcinoma, as well as its impact on directing treatment decisions. RECENT FINDINGS: Molecular classification has emerged as a complement to the current paradigm of endometrial cancer (EC) risk stratification. POLE mutations appear to portend favorable prognoses, but data are insufficient to indicate withholding treatment based on this signature. Copy number high (CNH) EC carries a worse prognosis and may benefit from more aggressive therapy. MMRd tumors are likely to have other prognostic features that indicate adjuvant treatment and many recurrences respond favorably to pembrolizumab. Progression of molecular profiling may allow further discrimination of the no specific molecular profile (NSMP) group. Treatment for this group remains largely based on conventional risk factors. For both the NSMP and the CNH groups, treatment with lenvatinib and pembrolizumab is an attractive contemporary option for recurrence management. Molecular classification is a useful adjunct to conventional risk stratification paradigms for both prognostic counseling and treatment selection. Clinical trials incorporating molecular signatures in assigning treatment strategies may further elucidate the value of this classification system.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This article will discuss the recent data on the prognostic significance of molecular classification of endometrial carcinoma, as well as its impact on directing treatment decisions. RECENT FINDINGS: Molecular classification has emerged as a complement to the current paradigm of endometrial cancer (EC) risk stratification. POLE mutations appear to portend favorable prognoses, but data are insufficient to indicate withholding treatment based on this signature. Copy number high (CNH) EC carries a worse prognosis and may benefit from more aggressive therapy. MMRd tumors are likely to have other prognostic features that indicate adjuvant treatment and many recurrences respond favorably to pembrolizumab. Progression of molecular profiling may allow further discrimination of the no specific molecular profile (NSMP) group. Treatment for this group remains largely based on conventional risk factors. For both the NSMP and the CNH groups, treatment with lenvatinib and pembrolizumab is an attractive contemporary option for recurrence management. Molecular classification is a useful adjunct to conventional risk stratification paradigms for both prognostic counseling and treatment selection. Clinical trials incorporating molecular signatures in assigning treatment strategies may further elucidate the value of this classification system.
Authors: Casey M Cosgrove; David L Tritchler; David E Cohn; David G Mutch; Craig M Rush; Heather A Lankes; William T Creasman; David S Miller; Nilsa C Ramirez; Melissa A Geller; Matthew A Powell; Floor J Backes; Lisa M Landrum; Cynthia Timmers; Adrian A Suarez; Richard J Zaino; Michael L Pearl; Paul A DiSilvestro; Shashikant B Lele; Paul J Goodfellow Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2017-11-11 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Aline Talhouk; Melissa K McConechy; Samuel Leung; Winnie Yang; Amy Lum; Janine Senz; Niki Boyd; Judith Pike; Michael Anglesio; Janice S Kwon; Anthony N Karnezis; David G Huntsman; C Blake Gilks; Jessica N McAlpine Journal: Cancer Date: 2017-01-06 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Lien N Hoang; Melissa K McConechy; Martin Köbel; Guangming Han; Marjan Rouzbahman; Ben Davidson; Julie Irving; Rola H Ali; Sam Leung; Jessica N McAlpine; Esther Oliva; Marisa R Nucci; Robert A Soslow; David G Huntsman; C Blake Gilks; Cheng-Han Lee Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: David N Church; Ellen Stelloo; Remi A Nout; Nadejda Valtcheva; Jeroen Depreeuw; Natalja ter Haar; Aurelia Noske; Frederic Amant; Ian P M Tomlinson; Peter J Wild; Diether Lambrechts; Ina M Jürgenliemk-Schulz; Jan J Jobsen; Vincent T H B M Smit; Carien L Creutzberg; Tjalling Bosse Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2014-12-12 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Ellen Stelloo; Remi A Nout; Elisabeth M Osse; Ina J Jürgenliemk-Schulz; Jan J Jobsen; Ludy C Lutgens; Elzbieta M van der Steen-Banasik; Hans W Nijman; Hein Putter; Tjalling Bosse; Carien L Creutzberg; Vincent T H B M Smit Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2016-03-22 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Caroline C Billingsley; David E Cohn; David G Mutch; Julie A Stephens; Adrian A Suarez; Paul J Goodfellow Journal: Cancer Date: 2014-09-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Cyriac Kandoth; Nikolaus Schultz; Andrew D Cherniack; Rehan Akbani; Yuexin Liu; Hui Shen; A Gordon Robertson; Itai Pashtan; Ronglai Shen; Christopher C Benz; Christina Yau; Peter W Laird; Li Ding; Wei Zhang; Gordon B Mills; Raju Kucherlapati; Elaine R Mardis; Douglas A Levine Journal: Nature Date: 2013-05-02 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Gloria Ravegnini; Francesca Gorini; Eugenia De Crescenzo; Antonio De Leo; Dario De Biase; Marco Di Stanislao; Patrizia Hrelia; Sabrina Angelini; Pierandrea De Iaco; Anna Myriam Perrone Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2021-11-17 Impact factor: 7.316