Cargando…

Clinicopathologic vs. Molecular Integrated Prognostication of Endometrial Carcinoma by European Guidelines

SIMPLE SUMMARY: The European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO), European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO), and European Society of Pathology (ESP) published joint guidelines in January 2021 that provide recommendations on all relevant issues of diagnosis and treatment in endomet...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Loukovaara, Mikko, Pasanen, Annukka, Bützow, Ralf
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8833335/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35158919
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/cancers14030651
_version_ 1784648910521761792
author Loukovaara, Mikko
Pasanen, Annukka
Bützow, Ralf
author_facet Loukovaara, Mikko
Pasanen, Annukka
Bützow, Ralf
author_sort Loukovaara, Mikko
collection PubMed
description SIMPLE SUMMARY: The European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO), European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO), and European Society of Pathology (ESP) published joint guidelines in January 2021 that provide recommendations on all relevant issues of diagnosis and treatment in endometrial carcinoma. Assessment of prognosis and adjuvant therapy decisions are based on classification of endometrial carcinomas into five risk groups with specific clinicopathologic features. Integration of molecular classification, originally described by The Cancer Genome Atlas, is encouraged for a more personalized risk assessment when molecular tools are available. We found that clinicopathologic and molecular integrated risk groups were similarly associated with distinct prognoses. The p53 abnormal molecular subgroup and mismatch repair deficient molecular subgroup were associated with poor survival within clinicopathologic low-risk and high-intermediate-risk carcinomas, respectively. Molecular classification caused a risk-group shift in 6–7% of patients. Comprehensive molecular classification was needed in 40% of patients for molecularly directed adjuvant therapy. ABSTRACT: This was a retrospective study of 604 patients with endometrial carcinoma, classified into ESGO-ESTRO-ESP 2021 clinicopathologic and molecular integrated risk groups. The Proactive Molecular Risk Classifier for Endometrial Cancer (ProMisE) and Leiden classifier were employed for molecular classification. Median follow-up time was 81 months. Clinicopathologic and molecular integrated risk groups were similarly associated with distinct prognoses (p < 0.001). Disease-specific survival was similar for all molecular subgroups within clinicopathologic intermediate-risk, high-risk, and advanced/metastatic groups. In contrast, the p53 abnormal subgroup (hazard ratio 9.1, 95% confidence interval 2.0–41; p = 0.004) and mismatch repair deficient subgroup (hazard ratio 3.5, 95% confidence interval 1.2–10; p = 0.024) were associated with disease-related death within clinicopathologic low-risk and high-intermediate-risk carcinomas, respectively. A risk-group shift occurred in 6.0% (36/604) and 7.4% (38/515) of patients classified by ProMisE and Leiden, respectively (p = 0.341). Of the 36 patients shifted in the ProMisE cohort, 27 were upshifted and 9 downshifted. Based on the Leiden classifier, polymerase-ϵ sequencing could be omitted in 60% (311/515) of patients without affecting the risk-group assessment. ESGO-ESTRO-ESP 2021 guidelines provide a platform for risk classification in future trials on molecularly directed treatment of endometrial carcinoma.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8833335
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-88333352022-02-12 Clinicopathologic vs. Molecular Integrated Prognostication of Endometrial Carcinoma by European Guidelines Loukovaara, Mikko Pasanen, Annukka Bützow, Ralf Cancers (Basel) Article SIMPLE SUMMARY: The European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO), European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO), and European Society of Pathology (ESP) published joint guidelines in January 2021 that provide recommendations on all relevant issues of diagnosis and treatment in endometrial carcinoma. Assessment of prognosis and adjuvant therapy decisions are based on classification of endometrial carcinomas into five risk groups with specific clinicopathologic features. Integration of molecular classification, originally described by The Cancer Genome Atlas, is encouraged for a more personalized risk assessment when molecular tools are available. We found that clinicopathologic and molecular integrated risk groups were similarly associated with distinct prognoses. The p53 abnormal molecular subgroup and mismatch repair deficient molecular subgroup were associated with poor survival within clinicopathologic low-risk and high-intermediate-risk carcinomas, respectively. Molecular classification caused a risk-group shift in 6–7% of patients. Comprehensive molecular classification was needed in 40% of patients for molecularly directed adjuvant therapy. ABSTRACT: This was a retrospective study of 604 patients with endometrial carcinoma, classified into ESGO-ESTRO-ESP 2021 clinicopathologic and molecular integrated risk groups. The Proactive Molecular Risk Classifier for Endometrial Cancer (ProMisE) and Leiden classifier were employed for molecular classification. Median follow-up time was 81 months. Clinicopathologic and molecular integrated risk groups were similarly associated with distinct prognoses (p < 0.001). Disease-specific survival was similar for all molecular subgroups within clinicopathologic intermediate-risk, high-risk, and advanced/metastatic groups. In contrast, the p53 abnormal subgroup (hazard ratio 9.1, 95% confidence interval 2.0–41; p = 0.004) and mismatch repair deficient subgroup (hazard ratio 3.5, 95% confidence interval 1.2–10; p = 0.024) were associated with disease-related death within clinicopathologic low-risk and high-intermediate-risk carcinomas, respectively. A risk-group shift occurred in 6.0% (36/604) and 7.4% (38/515) of patients classified by ProMisE and Leiden, respectively (p = 0.341). Of the 36 patients shifted in the ProMisE cohort, 27 were upshifted and 9 downshifted. Based on the Leiden classifier, polymerase-ϵ sequencing could be omitted in 60% (311/515) of patients without affecting the risk-group assessment. ESGO-ESTRO-ESP 2021 guidelines provide a platform for risk classification in future trials on molecularly directed treatment of endometrial carcinoma. MDPI 2022-01-27 /pmc/articles/PMC8833335/ /pubmed/35158919 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/cancers14030651 Text en © 2022 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Loukovaara, Mikko
Pasanen, Annukka
Bützow, Ralf
Clinicopathologic vs. Molecular Integrated Prognostication of Endometrial Carcinoma by European Guidelines
title Clinicopathologic vs. Molecular Integrated Prognostication of Endometrial Carcinoma by European Guidelines
title_full Clinicopathologic vs. Molecular Integrated Prognostication of Endometrial Carcinoma by European Guidelines
title_fullStr Clinicopathologic vs. Molecular Integrated Prognostication of Endometrial Carcinoma by European Guidelines
title_full_unstemmed Clinicopathologic vs. Molecular Integrated Prognostication of Endometrial Carcinoma by European Guidelines
title_short Clinicopathologic vs. Molecular Integrated Prognostication of Endometrial Carcinoma by European Guidelines
title_sort clinicopathologic vs. molecular integrated prognostication of endometrial carcinoma by european guidelines
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8833335/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35158919
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/cancers14030651
work_keys_str_mv AT loukovaaramikko clinicopathologicvsmolecularintegratedprognosticationofendometrialcarcinomabyeuropeanguidelines
AT pasanenannukka clinicopathologicvsmolecularintegratedprognosticationofendometrialcarcinomabyeuropeanguidelines
AT butzowralf clinicopathologicvsmolecularintegratedprognosticationofendometrialcarcinomabyeuropeanguidelines