Relevance of Molecular Profiling in Patients With Low-Grade Endometrial Cancer.
Journal
JAMA network open
ISSN: 2574-3805
Titre abrégé: JAMA Netw Open
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101729235
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 12 2022
01 12 2022
Historique:
entrez:
16
12
2022
pubmed:
17
12
2022
medline:
21
12
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Patients with low-grade (ie, grade 1-2) endometrial cancer (EC) are characterized by their favorable prognosis compared with patients with high-grade (ie, grade 3) EC. With the implementation of molecular profiling, the prognostic relevance of tumor grading might lose attention. As most patients present with low-grade EC and have an excellent outcome, the value of molecular profiling for these patients is unclear. To determine the association of molecular profiling with outcomes among patients with low-grade EC. This retrospective cohort study included a multicenter international European cohort of patients diagnosed with EC between 1994 and 2018, with a median follow-up of 5.9 years. Molecular subgroups were determined by next-generation sequencing using single-molecule molecular inversion probes and by immunohistochemistry. Subsequently, tumors were classified as polymerase epsilon (POLE)-altered, microsatellite instable (MSI), tumor protein p53 (TP53)-altered, or no specific molecular profile (NSMP). Patients diagnosed with any histological subtypes and FIGO (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics) stages of EC were included, but patients with early-stage EC (FIGO I-II) were only included if they had known lymph node status. Data were analyzed February 20 to June 16, 2022. Molecular testing of the 4 molecular subgroups. The main outcome was disease-specific survival (DSS) within the molecular subgroups. A total of 393 patients with EC were included, with a median (range) age of 64.0 (31.0-86.0) years and median (range) body mass index (BMI; calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared) of 29.1 (18.0-58.3). Most patients presented with early-stage (290 patients [73.8%]) and low-grade (209 patients [53.2%]) disease. Of all patients, 33 (8.4%) had POLE-altered EC, 78 (19.8%) had MSI EC, 72 (18.3%) had TP53-altered EC, and 210 (53.4%) had NSMP EC. Across all molecular subgroups, patients with low-grade EC had superior 5-year DSS compared with those with high-grade EC, varying between 90% to 100% vs 41% to 90% (P < .001). Multivariable analysis in the entire cohort including age, tumor grade, FIGO stage, lymphovascular space invasion, and the molecular subgroups as covariates found that only high-grade (hazard ratio [HR], 4.29; 95% CI, 2.15-8.53; P < .001), TP53-altered (HR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.04-2.95; P = .03), and FIGO stage III or IV (HR, 4.26; 95% CI, 2.50-7.26; P < .001) disease were independently associated with reduced DSS. This cohort study found that patients with low-grade EC had an excellent prognosis independent of molecular subgroup. These findings do not support routine molecular profiling in patients with low-grade EC, and they demonstrate the importance of primary diagnostic tumor grading and selective profiling in low-grade EC to increase cost-effectiveness.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36525269
pii: 2799631
doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.47372
pmc: PMC9856566
doi:
Types de publication
Multicenter Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e2247372Références
N Engl J Med. 2020 Nov 19;383(21):2053-2064
pubmed: 33207095
Lancet. 2016 Mar 12;387(10023):1094-1108
pubmed: 26354523
J Pathol. 2020 Mar;250(3):312-322
pubmed: 31829447
J Pathol. 2018 Jun;245(2):249-250
pubmed: 29512840
Br J Cancer. 2016 Sep 6;115(6):716-24
pubmed: 27505134
Gynecol Oncol. 2019 Jul;154(1):124-130
pubmed: 31103324
Nature. 2013 May 2;497(7447):67-73
pubmed: 23636398
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2021 Jun;31(6):907-913
pubmed: 33589443
Int J Cancer. 2020 Jul 15;147(2):478-489
pubmed: 32022266
Br J Cancer. 2020 Sep;123(5):785-792
pubmed: 32507853
Gynecol Oncol. 2021 Jun;161(3):787-794
pubmed: 33858677
CA Cancer J Clin. 2021 Jan;71(1):7-33
pubmed: 33433946
Ann Oncol. 2018 May 1;29(5):1180-1188
pubmed: 29432521
Gynecol Oncol. 2022 Mar;164(3):577-586
pubmed: 35078648
Hum Pathol. 2021 Nov;117:68-78
pubmed: 34418427
J Pathol. 2018 Apr;244(5):538-549
pubmed: 29344951
Gynecol Oncol. 2021 Mar;160(3):817-826
pubmed: 33516529
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2021 Jan;31(1):12-39
pubmed: 33397713
BMJ. 2004 Jul 10;329(7457):87-8
pubmed: 15138158
Am J Surg Pathol. 2018 May;42(5):561-568
pubmed: 29505428
J Mol Diagn. 2016 Nov;18(6):851-863
pubmed: 27637301