| Literature DB >> 34420090 |
Ignacio Ruz-Caracuel1,2, Álvaro López-Janeiro1, Victoria Heredia-Soto3,4, Jorge L Ramón-Patino5,6, Laura Yébenes1,7, Alberto Berjón1,7, Alicia Hernández8,9, Alejandro Gallego4,5, Patricia Ruiz7, Andrés Redondo5,9, Alberto Peláez-García7, Marta Mendiola10,11, David Hardisson12,13,14,15.
Abstract
Low-grade and early-stage endometrioid endometrial carcinomas (EECs) have an overall good prognosis but biomarkers identifying patients at risk of relapse are still lacking. Recently, CTNNB1 exon 3 mutation has been identified as a potential risk factor of recurrence in these patients. We evaluate the prognostic value of CTNNB1 mutation in a single-centre cohort of 218 low-grade, early-stage EECs, and the correlation with beta-catenin and LEF1 immunohistochemistry as candidate surrogate markers. CTNNB1 exon 3 hotspot mutations were evaluated by Sanger sequencing. Immunohistochemical staining of mismatch repair proteins (MLH1, PMS2, MSH2, and MSH6), p53, beta-catenin, and LEF1 was performed in representative tissue microarrays. Tumours were also reviewed for mucinous and squamous differentiation, and MELF pattern. Nineteen (8.7%) tumours harboured a mutation in CTNNB1 exon 3. Nuclear beta-catenin and LEF1 were significantly associated with CTNNB1 mutation, showing nuclear beta-catenin a better specificity and positive predictive value for CTNNB1 mutation. Tumours with CTNNB1 exon 3 mutation were associated with reduced disease-free survival (p = 0.010), but no impact on overall survival was found (p = 0.807). The risk of relapse in tumours with CTNNB1 exon 3 mutation was independent of FIGO stage, tumour grade, mismatch repair protein expression, or the presence of lymphovascular space invasion. CTNNB1 exon 3 mutation has a negative impact on disease-free survival in low-grade, early-stage EECs. Nuclear beta-catenin shows a higher positive predictive value than LEF1 for CTNNB1 exon 3 mutation in these tumours.Entities:
Keywords: Beta-catenin; CTNNB1 mutation; Endometrial cancer; Endometrioid carcinoma; LEF1; Low grade; Microsatellite instability; Prognosis
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34420090 PMCID: PMC8724178 DOI: 10.1007/s00428-021-03176-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Virchows Arch ISSN: 0945-6317 Impact factor: 4.064
Clinicopathological characteristics of the patients
| Total number | 218 | 199 (91.3%) | 19 (8.7%) | |
| 64.04 ± 10.38 | 64.19 ± 10.06 | 62.47 ± 13.54 | 0.251 | |
| IA | 149 (68.3%) | 139 (69.8%) | 10 (52.6%) | 0.304 |
| IB | 61 (28.0%) | 53 (26.6%) | 8 (42.1%) | |
| II | 8 (3.7%) | 7 (3.5%) | 1 (5.3%) | |
| None | 153 (70.2%) | 141 (70.9%) | 12 (63.2%) | 0.484 |
| Radiotherapy | 65 (29.8%) | 58 (29.1%) | 7 (36.8%) | |
| G1 | 165 (75.7%) | 149 (74.9%) | 16 (84.2%) | 0.575 |
| G2 | 53 (24.3%) | 50 (25.1%) | 3 (15.8%) | |
| Present | 38 (17.4%) | 32 (16.1%) | 6 (31.6%) | 0.110 |
| Absent | 180 (82.6%) | 167 (83.9%) | 13 (68.4%) | |
| Yes | 27 (12.4%) | 21 (10.6%) | 6 (31.6%) | |
| No | 191 (87.6%) | 178 (89.4%) | 13 (68.4%) | |
| Present | 81 (37.2%) | 68 (34.2%) | 13 (68.4%) | |
| Absent | 137 (62.8%) | 131 (65.8%) | 6 (31.6%) | |
| Present | 58 (26.6%) | 57 (28.6%) | 1 (5.3%) | |
| Absent | 160 (73.4%) | 142 (71.4%) | 18 (94.7%) | |
| Present | 29 (13.3%) | 28 (14.1%) | 1 (5.3%) | 0.480 |
| Absent | 189 (86.7%) | 171 (85.9%) | 18 (94.7%) | |
| Proficient | 163 (75.5%) | 144 (73.1%) | 19 (100%) | Not calculated |
| Deficient | 53 (24.5%) | 53 (26.9%) | 0 | |
| Present | 8 (3.7%) | 8 (4.1%) | 0 | Not calculated |
| Absent | 206 (96.3%) | 187 (95.9%) | 19 (100%) | |
| Present | 24 (11.3%) | 13 (6.7%) | 11 (57.9%) | |
| Absent | 188 (88.7%) | 180 (93.3%) | 8 (42.1%) | |
| Present | 75 (36.2%) | 62 (32.8%) | 13 (72.2%) | |
| Absent | 132 (63.8%) | 127 (67.2%) | 5 (27.8%) | |
Bold values indicate statistically significant p values (p < 0.05)
*Allred score ≥ 3; MMR, mismatch repair protein; MELF, microcystic, elongated, and fragmented
Fig. 1Kaplan–Meier curves for disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in low-grade, early-stage EECs. DFS (A) and OS (B) according to the presence of CTNNB1 exon 3 mutation
Univariate and multivariate analyses of odds ratios in the logistic regression model with relapse as the dependent variable
| Parameter | Odds ratio (CI 95%) | |
|---|---|---|
| Age ≥ 60 years | 2.662 (0.966–7.340) | 0.058 |
| Tumour grade 2 | 2.439 (1.052–5.653) | |
| FIGO stage ≥ IB | 3.347 (1.744–6.421) | |
| LVSI | 4.176 (1.751–9.957) | |
| DNA MMR-deficient protein expression | 2.406 (1.038–5.578) | |
| 3.912 (1.345–11.380) | ||
| Age ≥ 60 years | 2.298 (0.734–7.191) | 0.153 |
| Tumour grade 2 | 1.732 (0.666–4.500) | 0.260 |
| FIGO stage ≥ IB | 3.129 (1.197–8.178) | |
| LVSI | 2.166 (0.786–5.968) | 0.135 |
| DNA MMR-deficient protein expression | 2.361 (0.868–6.421) | 0.092 |
| 5.000 (1.334–18.745) | ||
Bold values indicate statistically significant p values (p < 0.05)
LVSI, lymphovascular space invasion; MMR, mismatch repair
Fig. 2Immunohistochemical expression of LEF1 and beta-catenin. Representative areas from whole slide images of LEF1 staining showing a myoinvasive front restricted staining (A), in contrast to an overexpression pattern (B). Paired examples of a tumour showing a membranous beta-catenin staining pattern without nuclear expression (C) and positive LEF1 nuclear staining (D). Paired examples of a tumour showing positive nuclear beta-catenin (E) and LEF1 expression (F)
Sensitivity and specificity of pathological parameters to predict CTNNB1 exon 3 mutation
| Sensitivity | Specificity | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Tumour grade 2 | 218 | 0.16 | 0.75 |
| LVSI | 218 | 0.32 | 0.84 |
| Squamous differentiation | 218 | 0.68 | 0.66 |
| Absence of mucinous differentiation | 218 | 0.95 | 0.29 |
| Absence of MELF pattern | 218 | 0.95 | 0.14 |
| Nuclear beta-catenin IHC | 212 | 0.58 | 0.93 |
| LEF 1 overexpression* | 207 | 0.67 | 0.72 |
*Allred score ≥ 3; LVSI, lymphovascular space invasion; PPV, positive predictive value; NPV, negative predictive value; MELF, microcystic, elongated, and fragmented