| Literature DB >> 35454841 |
Francesca Ciccarone1, Matteo Bruno1, Elisa De Paolis2, Alessia Piermattei3, Maria De Bonis2, Domenica Lorusso1,4, Gian Franco Zannoni3,4, Nicola Normanno5, Angelo Minucci2, Giovanni Scambia1,4, Gabriella Ferrandina1,4.
Abstract
Uterine leiomyosarcomas (uLMS) is a very rare disease, and patients experience a dismal prognosis even when treated with chemotherapy. Therefore, a more in-depth molecular characterization of this disease could provide suitable data for the identification of potential target-based drugs. This retrospective, single institutional study aimed to define the frequencies of gene alterations in uLMS, especially regarding the somatic mutations of BRCA and Homologous Recombination Repair (HRR) genes, and the impact of molecular alterations on clinical outcomes. The 16-genes Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) panel, Homologous Recombination Solution TM (HRS, Sophia Genetics, Saint Sulpice, Switzerland), was used for the molecular evaluation of samples. The majority of patients (66/105, 63%) carried at least one sequence alteration, with a prevalence of TP53 involvement followed by RAD51B, BRCA1/2, and FANCL. Patients with TP53 gene alterations experienced a significantly worse prognosis for progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) versus wild-type patients. Given the number of patients with the BRCA1/2 mutation (N = 12), we included them in the HRR patient group; there was no difference in clinical outcomes with HRR versus non-HRR. The Cox's multivariate analysis showed that stage and TP53 gene alterations resulted in a significantly worse OS. The integration of gene networking data, such as tumor mutation burdens and cancer driver gene identification, could show a clearer discrimination of gene distribution patterns, and lead to the implementation of therapeutic targets.Entities:
Keywords: clinical outcomes; homologous recombination deficiency; molecular characterization; uterine sarcomas
Year: 2022 PMID: 35454841 PMCID: PMC9024785 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14081934
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancers (Basel) ISSN: 2072-6694 Impact factor: 6.575
Figure 1Flow chart of patients and tumor tissue samples.
Baseline characteristics of uLMS patients.
| Patient Characteristics | uLMS Group (N = 105) |
|---|---|
| Age, yrs | |
| median (range) | 52 (25–94) |
| Menopause | |
| Yes | 53 (50.4%) |
| No | 48 (46.1%) |
|
| 4 (3.5%) |
| Familiarity cancer risk | |
| Yes | 67 (63.8%) |
| No | 34 (32.8%) |
|
| 4 (3.4%) |
| FIGO stage | |
| I | 71 (67.6%) |
| II | 10 (9.5%) |
| III | 9 (8.5%) |
| IV | 14 (13.4%) |
|
| 1 (1.0%) |
| Histotype | |
| Spindle | 73 (69.5%) |
| Epithelioid | 10 (9.5%) |
| Mixoid | 9 (8.6%) |
| Mixed | 13 (12.4%) |
| Surgery | |
| Primary cytoreduction | 73 (69.5%) |
| Secondary cytoreduction | 32 (30.5%) |
| Adjuvant therapy a | |
| Chemotherapy | |
| Yes | 89 (84.7%) |
| No | 11 (10.5%) |
|
| 5 (4.8%) |
| Radiotherapy | |
| Local disease control | 12 (63.2%) |
| Palliative | 7 (36.8%) |
n.a. = not available, a patients could have received >1 treatment.
Histology and immunohistochemistry features of uLMS tissue samples.
| uLMS Tissue Samples (N = 112) | |
|---|---|
| Tumor cellularity | 10.6 (3–42) |
| <20% | 2 (1.8%) |
| 21–40% | 7 (6.2%) |
| 41–60% | 4 (3.5%) |
| 61–80% | 29 (25.8%) |
| >80% | 70 (62.7%) |
| Median (range) | 90% (10–100) |
| Tumor necrosis | |
| <20% | 91 (81.2%) |
| 21–40% | 14 (12.5%) |
| 41–60% | 6 (5.4%) |
| 61–80% | 1 (0.9%) |
| >80% | 0 |
| Median (range) | 0% (0–70) |
| Estrogen receptors | |
| Primary tissue samples (N = 73) | |
| median (range) | 21% (0–100) |
| Recurrence tissue samples (N = 39) | |
| median (range) | 28% (0–90) |
| Progesterone receptors | |
| Primary tissue samples (N = 73) | 15% (0–100) |
| median (range) | |
| Recurrence tissue samples (N = 39) | 18% (0–100) |
| median (range) | |
| Ki67 | |
| median (range) | 48% (10–90) |
Figure 2Molecular profile of uLMS. (A) Genomic alterations found in enrolled patients. For TP53, double rows represent the co-occurrence of two unique variants in the same uLMS case. (B) Distribution of frequencies of alterations in TP53 gene (orange), HRD-related genes (gray), and both TP53 and HRD-related genes (gold) on primary and metastatic lesions. Wild-type genes are included in the blue panel. “*” Variants of Uncertain Significance (VUSs).
Figure 3Distribution of TP53 variants in the context of a protein structure. The figure shows the linear maps of TP53 and the location of the genetic variants.
Figure 4PFS and OS according to patients with: (A) wild-type TP53 versus mutated TP53; (B) HRR versus non-HRR alterations.
Multivariate analysis of clinical outcomes on FIGO disease stage and genomic alterations.
| Variables | PFS | OS | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N. | HR (CI95%) | HR (CI95%) | |||
| FIGO stage | |||||
| Advanced/metastatic | 19 | ||||
| Early | 54 | 0.338 (0.161–0.709) | 0.004 | 0.449 (0.211–0.954) | 0.037 |
| Yes | 30 * | ||||
| No | 43 | 0.510 (0.246–1.056) | 0.07 | 0.312 (0.145–0.670) | 0.003 |
| CNA | |||||
| Presence | 15 | ||||
| Absent | 58 | 1.102 (0.504–2.410) | 0.807 | 1.056 (0.474–2.353) | 0.893 |
| Yes | 8 * | ||||
| No | 65 | 0.991 (0.419–2.344) | 0.983 | 0.695 (0.293–1.648) | 0.409 |
HR: Hazard ratio; CI95%: 95% Confidence interval. * Only TP53- or BRCA- and HRR-related alterations; a total of 8 patients carrying both TP53- and HRR-related alterations were excluded from the analysis.