| Literature DB >> 35034160 |
Renato Seracchioli1, Antonio Mollo2, Antonio Travaglino3, Antonio Raffone4,5, Diego Raimondo6, Sabrina Reppuccia7, Alessandro Ruggiero7, Alessandro Arena6, Paolo Casadio6, Fulvio Zullo7, Luigi Insabato3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the last years, mutations in the exon 3 of CTNNB1 have emerged as a possible prognostic factor for recurrence in early stage endometrioid endometrial carcinoma, especially in cases with no specific molecular profile (NSMP).Entities:
Keywords: Adjuvant treatment; CTNNB1; Endometrioid; Risk group; β-Catenin
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35034160 PMCID: PMC9349085 DOI: 10.1007/s00404-021-06385-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Arch Gynecol Obstet ISSN: 0932-0067 Impact factor: 2.493
Fig. 1Flow diagram of studies identified in the systematic review (Prisma template [Preferred Reporting Item for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses])
Characteristics of the included studies
| Study | Country | Period of enrollment | Selection criteria | Sample size | Age, mean/median, years | BMI, mean/median, kg/m2 | Follow-up, mean/median, months | Adjuvant treatment (no.) | Recurrence (no.) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Myers 2014 | USA | 1998–2010 | FIGO IA G1 EC | 47 | 69.6 (cases) 62.8 (controls) | 28 (cases) 34 (controls) | 62 (cases) 124 (controls) | None (46), brachytherapy (1) | 11 |
| Stelloo 2016 | Netherlands | 1990–1997, 2000–2006 | FIGO IB G1–2 EC, FIGO IA G3 EC | 546 (443 were NSMP) | 68 | Not reported | 131 | None (241), brachytherapy (184), EBRT (409) | 23 (only distant) |
| Kurnit 2017 | USA | 2000–2015 | FIGO I–II G1–2 EC | 125 | 60.6 | 33.8 | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported |
| Imboden 2019 | Switzerland | 2002–2014 | FIGO I G1–2 EC | 41 (18 tested for CTNNB1) | 67.8 | Not reported | 38.6 (cases) 93.5 (controls) | None (2), brachytherapy (16) | 9 |
| Moroney 2019 | USA | 2007–2017 | FIGO I G1 EC | 44 | 57 (cases) 59 (controls) | 33.1 (cases) 34.2 (controls) | ≥ 86 months | None | 15 |
| Li 2020 | China | Not reporteda | FIGO Ib | 294 (215 eligible for meta-analysis) | 64 | Not reported | Not reported | None (123), brachytherapy (92), EBRT (79) | Not reported |
| Stasenko 2020 | USA | 2009–2017 | FIGO IA G1 EC | 486 (36 tested for CTNNB1) | 58 | 31 | 51 months (cases) 33 months (controls) | None | 9 |
aData are retrieved from the TCGA database
bThe group of patients with high-risk features (i.e., G3 endometrioid with > 50% myometrial invasion and non-endometrioid) was excluded from meta-analysis
Fig. 2Assessment of risk of bias. Summary of risk of bias for each study; Plus sign: low risk of bias; minus sign: high risk of bias; question mark: unclear risk of bias
Fig. 3Forest plot reporting odds ratio (HR) values with 95% confidence interval (CI), for each study and as pooled estimate, for the association between CTNNB1 mutation and endometrial cancer recurrence
Fig. 4Forest plot reporting odds ratio (HR) values with 95% confidence interval (CI), for each study and as pooled estimate, for the association between CTNNB1 mutation and endometrial cancer recurrence, after excluding the cases with known molecular status other than NSMP
Fig. 5Forest plot reporting hazard ratio (HR) values with 95% confidence interval (CI), for each study and as pooled estimate, for the hazard of recurrence in CTNNB1-mutant vs CTNNB1-wild-type endometrial cancer
Fig. 6Forest plot reporting hazard ratio (HR) values with 95% confidence interval (CI), for each study and as pooled estimate, for the hazard of recurrence in CTNNB1-mutant vs CTNNB1-wild-type endometrial cancer, after excluding the cases with known molecular status other than NSMP