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
. 2019 Jan;30(1):e13.
doi: 10.3802/jgo.2019.30.e13. Epub 2018 Oct 29.

The prognostic significance of estrogen and progesterone receptors in grade I and II endometrioid endometrial adenocarcinoma: hormone receptors in risk stratification

Jun Guan #  1   2 , Liying Xie #  3 , Xuezhen Luo  3   4 , Bingyi Yang  3   4 , Hongwei Zhang  5 , Qin Zhu  6 , Xiaojun Chen  3   7
Affiliations

The prognostic significance of estrogen and progesterone receptors in grade I and II endometrioid endometrial adenocarcinoma: hormone receptors in risk stratification

Jun Guan et al. J Gynecol Oncol. 2019 Jan.

Abstract

Objectives: Although patients with grade I and II endometrioid endometrial adenocarcinoma (EEA) are considered with good prognosis, among them 15%-25% died in 5 years. It is still unknown whether integrating estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR) into clinical risk stratification can help select high-risk patients with grade I-II EEA. This study was to investigate the prognostic value of ER and PR double negativity (ER/PR loss) in grade I-II EEA, and the association between ER/PR loss and The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) classification.

Methods: ER and PR were assessed by immunohistochemistry on hysterectomy specimens of 903 patients with grade I-II EEA. ER and PR negativity were determined when <1% tumor nuclei were stained. Gene expression data were obtained from the TCGA research network.

Results: Compared with ER or PR positive patients (n=868), patients with ER/PR loss (n=35) had deeper myometrial infiltration (p=0.012), severer FIGO stage (p=0.004), and higher rate of pelvic lymph node metastasis (p=0.020). In univariate analysis, ER/PR loss correlated with a shorter progression-free survival (PFS; hazard ratio [HR]=5.25; 95% confidence interval [CI]=2.21-12.52) and overall survival (OS; HR=7.59; 95% CI=2.55-22.60). In multivariate analysis, ER/PR loss independently predicted poor PFS (HR=3.77; 95% CI=1.60-10.14) and OS (HR=5.56; 95% CI=1.37-22.55) for all patients, and poor PFS for patients in stage IA (n=695; HR=5.54; 95% CI=1.28-23.89) and stage II-IV (n=129; HR=5.77; 95% CI=1.57-21.27). No association was found between ER/PR loss and TCGA classification.

Conclusion: Integrating ER/PR evaluation into clinical risk stratification may improve prognosis for grade I-II EEA patients.

Keywords: Biomarker; Endometrial Cancer; Endometrioid Carcinoma; Estrogen Receptor; Low-Grade; Progesterone Receptor.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1. Representative photomicrographs of immunohistochemical staining for estimation of ER-α, PR, and p53: (A) ER loss, (B) ER positive, (C) PR loss, (D) PR positive, (E) p53 loss, (F) p53 normal, and (G) p53 over-expression (A-D: original magnification ×40; E,F: original magnification ×20).
ER, estrogen receptor; PR, progesterone receptor.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2. Estimated PFS and OS for grade I–II EEA patients (A, B) according to ER/PR status and within risk subgroups based on FIGO stage: stage IA (C, D), stage IB (E, F) and stage II–IV (G, H) (Kaplan-Meier estimation).
PFS, progression-free survival; OS, overall survival; ER, estrogen receptor; PR, progesterone receptor; FIGO, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics.
Fig. 3
Fig. 3. Prognostic values of ER/PR status, ESR1/PGR status and TCGA genomic subgroups in grade I–II EEA patients (Kaplan-Meier estimation) and association between TCGA classification and ESR1/PGR expression(χ2 test): (A) estimated PFS according to ER/PR status by immunohistochemistry in Shanghai cohort, (B) estimated PFS according to mRNA expression of ESR1/PGR status in TCGA cohort, (C) estimated PFS according to TCGA genomic subgroups in TCGA cohort, and (D) distribution of TCGA genomic subgroups in low- and high-ESR1/PGR groups and the association between TCGA classification and ESR1/PGR status.
ER, estrogen receptor; PR, progesterone receptor; TGCA, The Cancer Genome Atlas; EEA, endometrioid endometrial adenocarcinoma; PFS, progression-free survival.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer. GLOBOCAN 2012: estimated cancer incidence, mortality and prevalence worldwide in 2012 [Internet] Lyon: International Agency for Re-search on Cancer; [cited 2018 Jun 1]. Available from: http://globocan.iarc.fr/Pages/fact_sheets_population.aspx.
    1. Kitchener HC, Trimble EL Endometrial Cancer Working Group of the Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup. Endometrial cancer state of the science meeting. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2009;19:134–140. - PubMed
    1. Abeler VM, Kjørstad KE. Endometrial adenocarcinoma in Norway. A study of a total population. Cancer. 1991;67:3093–3103. - PubMed
    1. Dedes KJ, Wetterskog D, Ashworth A, Kaye SB, Reis-Filho JS. Emerging therapeutic targets in endometrial cancer. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2011;8:261–271. - PubMed
    1. Rose PG. Endometrial carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 1996;335:640–649. - PubMed

MeSH terms