Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Multicenter Study
. 2018 May;42(5):561-568.
doi: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000001020.

Molecular Classification of Grade 3 Endometrioid Endometrial Cancers Identifies Distinct Prognostic Subgroups

Affiliations
Multicenter Study

Molecular Classification of Grade 3 Endometrioid Endometrial Cancers Identifies Distinct Prognostic Subgroups

Tjalling Bosse et al. Am J Surg Pathol. 2018 May.

Abstract

Our aim was to investigate whether molecular classification can be used to refine prognosis in grade 3 endometrial endometrioid carcinomas (EECs). Grade 3 EECs were classified into 4 subgroups: p53 abnormal, based on mutant-like immunostaining (p53abn); MMR deficient, based on loss of mismatch repair protein expression (MMRd); presence of POLE exonuclease domain hotspot mutation (POLE); no specific molecular profile (NSMP), in which none of these aberrations were present. Overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) rates were compared using the Kaplan-Meier method (Log-rank test) and univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazard models. In total, 381 patients were included. The median age was 66 years (range, 33 to 96 y). Federation Internationale de Gynecologie et d'Obstetrique stages (2009) were as follows: IA, 171 (44.9%); IB, 120 (31.5%); II, 24 (6.3%); III, 50 (13.1%); IV, 11 (2.9%). There were 49 (12.9%) POLE, 79 (20.7%) p53abn, 115 (30.2%) NSMP, and 138 (36.2%) MMRd tumors. Median follow-up of patients was 6.1 years (range, 0.2 to 17.0 y). Compared to patients with NSMP, patients with POLE mutant grade 3 EEC (OS: hazard ratio [HR], 0.36 [95% confidence interval, 0.18-0.70]; P=0.003; RFS: HR, 0.17 [0.05-0.54]; P=0.003) had a significantly better prognosis; patients with p53abn tumors had a significantly worse RFS (HR, 1.73 [1.09-2.74]; P=0.021); patients with MMRd tumors showed a trend toward better RFS. Estimated 5-year OS rates were as follows: POLE 89%, MMRd 75%, NSMP 69%, p53abn 55% (Log rank P=0.001). Five-year RFS rates were as follows: POLE 96%, MMRd 77%, NSMP 64%, p53abn 47% (P=0.000001), respectively. In a multivariable Cox model that included age and Federation Internationale de Gynecologie et d'Obstetrique stage, POLE and MMRd status remained independent prognostic factors for better RFS; p53 status was an independent prognostic factor for worse RFS. Molecular classification of grade 3 EECs reveals that these tumors are a mixture of molecular subtypes of endometrial carcinoma, rather than a homogeneous group. The addition of molecular markers identifies prognostic subgroups, with potential therapeutic implications.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Use of immunohistochemistry for molecular subgroup assignment (A) FIGO grade 3 endometrioid carcinoma with p53 overexpression (p53abn subgroup). (B) FIGO grade 3 endometrioid carcinoma with loss of MLH1 expression (MMRd subgroup). (C) FIGO grade 3 endometrioid carcinoma with normal expression p53 staining, no DNA MMR abnormalities (not shown) and no POLE hotspot mutation (NSMP subgroup). (D) FIGO grade 3 endometrioid carcinoma lacking immunohistochemical abnormalities. POLE hotspot mutation identified (POLE subgroup).
Figure 2
Figure 2
FIGO stage is associated with recurrence-free survival.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Molecular subgroup is associated with overall (A) and recurrence-free survival (B) in FIGO grade 3 endometrioid carcinoma.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Molecular subgroup is associated with overall (A) and recurrence-free survival (B) in FIGO stage I, grade 3 endometrioid carcinoma.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. NIH National Cancer Institute. Surveillance Epidemiology, and End Results Program. (Cancer Statistics).Cancer Stat Facts: Endometrial Cancer. 2017 Available at: http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/corp.html. Accessed 10/12/2017.
    1. Kandoth C, Schultz N, Cherniack AD, et al. Integrated genomic characterization of endometrial carcinoma. Nature. 2013;497:67–73. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Proctor L, Pradhan M, Leung S, et al. Assessment of DNA Ploidy in the ProMisE molecular subgroups of endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2017;146:596–602. - PubMed
    1. Stelloo E, Bosse T, Nout RA, et al. Refining prognosis and identifying targetable pathways for high-risk endometrial cancer; a TransPORTEC initiative. Mod Pathol. 2015;28:836–844. - PubMed
    1. Stelloo E, Nout RA, Osse EM, et al. Improved Risk Assessment by Integrating Molecular and Clinicopathological Factors in Early-stage Endometrial Cancer-Combined Analysis of the PORTEC Cohorts. Clin Cancer Res. 2016;22:4215–4224. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms