Equivalent Survival of p53 Mutated Endometrial Endometrioid Carcinoma Grade 3 and Endometrial Serous Carcinoma.
Journal
International journal of gynecological pathology : official journal of the International Society of Gynecological Pathologists
ISSN: 1538-7151
Titre abrégé: Int J Gynecol Pathol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8214845
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Mar 2021
01 Mar 2021
Historique:
pubmed:
9
4
2020
medline:
31
8
2021
entrez:
9
4
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
TP53 status is the most important prognostic biomarker in endometrial carcinoma. We asked the question whether p53 mutated endometrial endometrioid carcinomas grade 3 (EEC3) or endometrial serous carcinomas (ESC), the latter ubiquitously harboring TP53 mutation, have different outcomes. TP53 mutation status was assessed by surrogate p53 immunohistochemistry on 326 EEC3 and ESC from 2 major cancer centers in Canada. Mutant-type p53 expression, including overexpression, complete absence, or cytoplasmic expression, was distinguished from the wild-type pattern. Statistical associations with clinico-pathological parameter, other key biomarkers, and survival analyses were performed. P53 mutant-type immunohistochemistry was observed in all 126 ESC and in 47/200 (23.5%) EEC3. ESC and p53 mutated EEC3 had an unfavorable outcome compared with p53 wild-type EEC3 (hazard ratio=2.37, 95% confidence interval=1.48-3.80, P=0.003, hazard ratio=2.19, 95% confidence interval=1.16-4.12, P=0.016, respectively) in multivariable analyses adjusted for age, stage, center, and presence of lymph-vascular invasion. There was no significant difference in survival between ESC and p53 mutated EEC3 in multivariable analysis. Furthermore, p53 mutated EEC3 and ESC almost completely overlapped in univariate survival analysis when mismatch repair (MMR)-deficient cases were excluded, which suggests that EEC3 harboring combined MMR deficiency and TP53 mutations behave more according to the MMR status. Significant differences between p53 mutated MMR-proficient EEC3 and ESC in PTEN and p16 expression status remained. p53 mutated, MMR-proficient EEC3 and ESC have overlapping survival significantly different from p53 wild-type EEC3, which justifies a similar treatment with current non-targeted standard therapy. Although this is so, separate classification should continue due to biological differences that will become important for future targeted therapy.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32265358
pii: 00004347-202103000-00002
doi: 10.1097/PGP.0000000000000674
doi:
Substances chimiques
TP53 protein, human
0
Tumor Suppressor Protein p53
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
116-123Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 by the International Society of Gynecological Pathologists.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Références
Cancer Genome Atlas Research N, Kandoth C, Schultz N, et al. Integrated genomic characterization of endometrial carcinoma. Nature 2013;497:67–73.
Talhouk A, Hoang LN, McConechy MK, et al. Molecular classification of endometrial carcinoma on diagnostic specimens is highly concordant with final hysterectomy: earlier prognostic information to guide treatment. Gynecol Oncol 2016;143:46–53.
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;22:4215–24.
Talhouk A, McConechy MK, Leung S, et al. Confirmation of ProMisE: a simple, genomics-based clinical classifier for endometrial cancer. Cancer 2017;123:802–13.
Zaino RCSG, Ellenson LH. WHO Classification of Tumours of Female Reproductive Organs: Tumours of the Uterine Corpus, Epithelial Tumours and Precursors. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2014.
Han G, Sidhu D, Duggan MA, et al. Reproducibility of histological cell type in high-grade endometrial carcinoma. Mod Pathol 2013;26:1594–604.
Hoang LN, Kinloch MA, Leo JM, et al. Interobserver agreement in endometrial carcinoma histotype diagnosis varies depending on The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA)-based molecular subgroup. Am J Surg Pathol 2017;41:245–52.
Chen W, Husain A, Nelson GS, et al. Immunohistochemical profiling of endometrial serous carcinoma. Int J Gynecol Pathol 2017;36:128–39.
Murali R, Davidson B, Fadare O, et al. High-grade endometrial carcinomas: morphologic and immunohistochemical features, diagnostic challenges and recommendations. Int J Gynecol Pathol 2019;38(suppl 1):S40–63.
Brett MA, Woodbeck R, Nelson GS, et al. High-grade endometrial carcinoma: a practical approach using ancillary testing to distinguish grade 3 endometrioid from serous carcinoma. Can J Pathology 2019;11:44–58.
Bosse T, Nout RA, McAlpine JN, et al. Molecular classification of grade 3 endometrioid endometrial cancers identifies distinct prognostic subgroups. Am J Surg Pathol 2018;42:561–8.
Kobel M, Nelson GS. Letter in response to: McAlpine J, Leon-Castillo A, Bosse T. The rise of a novel classification system for endometrial carcinoma; integration of molecular subclasses . J Pathol 2018; 244:538–49. J Pathol 2018;245:249–50.
Kobel M, Atenafu EG, Rambau PF, et al. Progesterone receptor expression is associated with longer overall survival within high-grade histotypes of endometrial carcinoma: a Canadian high risk endometrial cancer consortium (CHREC) study. Gynecol Oncol 2016;141:559–63.
Altman AD, Ferguson SE, Atenafu EG, et al. Canadian high risk endometrial cancer (CHREC) consortium: analyzing the clinical behavior of high risk endometrial cancers. Gynecol Oncol 2015;139:268–74.
Bernardini MQ, Gien LT, Lau S, et al. Treatment related outcomes in high-risk endometrial carcinoma: Canadian high risk endometrial cancer consortium (CHREC). Gynecol Oncol 2016;141:148–54.
Kobel M, Piskorz AM, Lee S, et al. Optimized p53 immunohistochemistry is an accurate predictor of TP53 mutation in ovarian carcinoma. J Pathol Clin Res 2016;2:247–58.
Singh N, Piskorz AM, Bosse T, et al. p53 immunohistochemistry is an accurate surrogate for TP53 mutational analysis in endometrial carcinoma biopsies. J Pathol 2019;250:336–45.
Kobel M, Ronnett BM, Singh N, et al. Interpretation of P53 immunohistochemistry in endometrial carcinomas: toward increased reproducibility. Int J Gynecol Pathol 2019;38(suppl 1):S123–31.
Meng B, Hoang LN, McIntyre JB, et al. POLE exonuclease domain mutation predicts long progression-free survival in grade 3 endometrioid carcinoma of the endometrium. Gynecol Oncol 2014;134:15–9.
Leon-Castillo A, Gilvazquez E, Nout R, et al. Clinicopathological and molecular characterisation of “multiple classifier” endometrial carcinomas. J Pathol 2019;250:312–22.
Allo G, Bernardini MQ, Wu RC, et al. ARID1A loss correlates with mismatch repair deficiency and intact p53 expression in high-grade endometrial carcinomas. Mod Pathol 2014;27:255–61.
Kuhn E, Bahadirli-Talbott A, Shih Ie M. Frequent CCNE1 amplification in endometrial intraepithelial carcinoma and uterine serous carcinoma. Mod Pathol 2014;27:1014–9.
Slomovitz BM, Broaddus RR, Burke TW, et al. Her-2/neu overexpression and amplification in uterine papillary serous carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:3126–32.
Hoang LN, McConechy MK, Kobel M, et al. Histotype-genotype correlation in 36 high-grade endometrial carcinomas. Am J Surg Pathol 2013;37:1421–32.