Advertisement

Mismatch repair status influences response to fertility-sparing treatment of endometrial cancer

Published:October 08, 2020DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2020.10.003

      Background

      Patients younger than 40 years usually present with early-stage endometrial cancer with favorable prognosis. However, such patients are usually in their childbearing age and may desire fertility-sparing options. The identification of biomarkers may improve the clinical outcomes in these patients and aid in fertility-sparing management; however, there has been no reports on biomarker analysis so far.

      Objective

      This study aimed to evaluate the prognostic significance of Proactive Molecular Risk Classifier for Endometrial Cancer in the fertility-sparing management of endometrial cancer.

      Study Design

      A total of 57 endometrial biopsy specimens obtained before hormone therapy were evaluated, and patients were classified according to the Proactive Molecular Risk Classifier for Endometrial Cancer molecular subtypes (mismatch repair deficiency, DNA polymerase epsilon mutation, wild-type p53, and abnormal p53). The primary endpoint was the response rate after hormone therapy. The secondary endpoint was the recurrence rate after the complete response, hysterectomy rate owing to treatment failure, and upstaged diagnosis rate after hysterectomy.

      Results

      Of 57 patients, 9 (15.8%) had mismatch repair deficiency, 2 (3.5%) had DNA polymerase epsilon mutation, 45 (78.9%) had wild-type p53, and 1 (1.8%) had abnormal p53. Overall, the complete response rate was 75.4% after hormone therapy. Patients with mismatch repair deficiency had a significantly lower complete response or partial response rate than those with wild-type p53 in terms of the best overall response (44.4% [95% confidence interval, 4.0–85.0] vs 82.2% [95% confidence interval, 71.0–94.0]; P=.018) and complete response rate at 6 months (11.1% [95% confidence interval, 0.2–37.0] vs 53.3% [95% confidence interval, 38.0–68.0]; P=.010). Among patients with mismatch repair deficiency, 4 underwent immediate hysterectomy because of treatment failure and 3 presented upstaged diagnosis after hysterectomy.

      Conclusion

      The Proactive Molecular Risk Classifier for Endometrial Cancer molecular classification has prognostic significance in the fertility-sparing management of endometrial cancer, thereby enabling early stratification and risk assignment to direct care. Mismatch repair status could be used as a predictive biomarker for selecting patients who could benefit from hormone therapy. These findings need to be validated in larger studies.

      Key words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Siegel R.L.
        • Miller K.D.
        • Jemal A.
        Cancer statistics, 2020.
        CA Cancer J Clin. 2020; 70: 7-30
        • National Center for Health Statistics
        Normal weight, overweight, and obesity among adults aged 20 and over, by selected characteristics: United States, selected years 1988–1994 through 2013–2016.
        (Available at:)
        https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/2018/026.pdf
        Date accessed: September 15, 2020
        • Ministry of Health & Welfare, Korea Centers for Disease Control & Prevention
        Korea health Statistics 2018: Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (KNHANES VII-3).
        (Available at:)
        • US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Cancer Institute
        US Cancer Statistics Working Group. U.S. Cancer Statistics Data Visualizations tool, based on 2019 submission data 1999–2017. 2020.
        (Available at:)
        http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/dataviz
        Date accessed: September 15, 2020
        • Korea Central Cancer Registry
        • National Cancer Center
        Annual report of cancer statistics in Korea in 2017.
        Ministry of Health and Welfare, 2019 (Available at: https://ncc.re.kr/cancerStatsView.ncc?bbsnum=518&searchKey=total&searchValue=&pageNum=1. Accessed September 15, 2020.)
        • Soliman P.T.
        • Oh J.C.
        • Schmeler K.M.
        • et al.
        Risk factors for young premenopausal women with endometrial cancer.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2005; 105: 575-580
        • Duska L.R.
        • Garrett A.
        • Rueda B.R.
        • Haas J.
        • Chang Y.
        • Fuller A.F.
        Endometrial cancer in women 40 years old or younger.
        Gynecol Oncol. 2001; 83: 388-393
        • Erkanli S.
        • Ayhan A.
        Fertility-sparing therapy in young women with endometrial cancer: 2010 update.
        Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2010; 20: 1170-1187
        • Kesterson J.P.
        • Fanning J.
        Fertility-sparing treatment of endometrial cancer: options, outcomes and pitfalls.
        J Gynecol Oncol. 2012; 23: 120-124
        • Ramirez P.T.
        • Frumovitz M.
        • Bodurka D.C.
        • Sun C.C.
        • Levenback C.
        Hormonal therapy for the management of grade 1 endometrial adenocarcinoma: a literature review.
        Gynecol Oncol. 2004; 95: 133-138
        • Tangjitgamol S.
        • Manusirivithaya S.
        • Hanprasertpong J.
        Fertility-sparing in endometrial cancer.
        Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2009; 67: 250-268
        • Baker J.
        • Obermair A.
        • Gebski V.
        • Janda M.
        Efficacy of oral or intrauterine device-delivered progestin in patients with complex endometrial hyperplasia with atypia or early endometrial adenocarcinoma: a meta-analysis and systematic review of the literature.
        Gynecol Oncol. 2012; 125: 263-270
        • Kommoss S.
        • McConechy M.K.
        • Kommoss F.
        • et al.
        Final validation of the ProMisE molecular classifier for endometrial carcinoma in a large population-based case series.
        Ann Oncol. 2018; 29: 1180-1188
        • Talhouk A.
        • McConechy M.K.
        • Leung S.
        • et al.
        Confirmation of ProMisE: a simple, genomics-based clinical classifier for endometrial cancer.
        Cancer. 2017; 123: 802-813
        • Talhouk A.
        • McConechy M.K.
        • Leung S.
        • et al.
        A clinically applicable molecular-based classification for endometrial cancers.
        Br J Cancer. 2015; 113: 299-310
        • Stelloo E.
        • Nout R.A.
        • Osse E.M.
        • 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
        • Talhouk A.
        • Hoang L.N.
        • McConechy M.K.
        • 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 R.A.
        • Naves L.C.
        • et al.
        High concordance of molecular tumor alterations between pre-operative curettage and hysterectomy specimens in patients with endometrial carcinoma.
        Gynecol Oncol. 2014; 133: 197-204
        • Park J.Y.
        • Lee S.H.
        • Seong S.J.
        • et al.
        Progestin re-treatment in patients with recurrent endometrial adenocarcinoma after successful fertility-sparing management using progestin.
        Gynecol Oncol. 2013; 129: 7-11
        • Hammond M.E.
        • Hayes D.F.
        • Dowsett M.
        • et al.
        American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer (unabridged version).
        Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2010; 134: e48-e72
        • Park J.Y.
        • Kim D.Y.
        • Kim T.J.
        • et al.
        Hormonal therapy for women with stage IA endometrial cancer of all grades.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 122: 7-14
        • Falcone F.
        • Leone Roberti Maggiore U.
        • Di Donato V.
        • et al.
        Fertility-sparing treatment for intramucous, moderately differentiated, endometrioid endometrial cancer: a Gynecologic Cancer Inter-Group (GCIG) study.
        J Gynecol Oncol. 2020; 31: e74
        • Smith D.
        • Stewart C.J.R.
        • Clarke E.M.
        • et al.
        ER and PR expression and survival after endometrial cancer.
        Gynecol Oncol. 2018; 148: 258-266
        • Raffone A.
        • Travaglino A.
        • Saccone G.
        • et al.
        Should progesterone and estrogen receptors be assessed for predicting the response to conservative treatment of endometrial hyperplasia and cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
        Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2019; 98: 976-987
        • Guan J.
        • Xie L.
        • Luo X.
        • et al.
        The prognostic significance of estrogen and progesterone receptors in grade I and II endometrioid endometrial adenocarcinoma: hormone receptors in risk stratification.
        J Gynecol Oncol. 2019; 30: e13
        • Murali R.
        • Soslow R.A.
        • Weigelt B.
        Classification of endometrial carcinoma: more than two types.
        Lancet Oncol. 2014; 15: e268-e278
        • Kandoth C.
        • Schultz N.
        • et al.
        • Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network
        Integrated genomic characterization of endometrial carcinoma.
        Nature. 2013; 497: 67-73
        • Britton H.
        • Huang L.
        • Lum A.
        • et al.
        Molecular classification defines outcomes and opportunities in young women with endometrial carcinoma.
        Gynecol Oncol. 2019; 153: 487-495
        • Stewart K.I.
        • Yates M.S.
        • Westin S.N.
        Pushing the envelope: expanding fertility sparing treatment of endometrial cancer.
        J Gynecol Oncol. 2020; 31: e82
        • National Comprehensive Cancer Network
        NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. Uterine neoplasms, version 1. 2020.
        (Available at:)
        • McConechy M.K.
        • Talhouk A.
        • Li-Chang H.H.
        • et al.
        Detection of DNA mismatch repair (MMR) deficiencies by immunohistochemistry can effectively diagnose the microsatellite instability (MSI) phenotype in endometrial carcinomas.
        Gynecol Oncol. 2015; 137: 306-310
        • Bartley A.N.
        • Luthra R.
        • Saraiya D.S.
        • Urbauer D.L.
        • Broaddus R.R.
        Identification of cancer patients with Lynch syndrome: clinically significant discordances and problems in tissue-based mismatch repair testing.
        Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2012; 5: 320-327
        • Shia J.
        Immunohistochemistry versus microsatellite instability testing for screening colorectal cancer patients at risk for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer syndrome. Part I. The utility of immunohistochemistry.
        J Mol Diagn. 2008; 10: 293-300
        • Reijnen C.
        • Küsters-Vandevelde H.V.N.
        • Prinsen C.F.
        • et al.
        Mismatch repair deficiency as a predictive marker for response to adjuvant radiotherapy in endometrial cancer.
        Gynecol Oncol. 2019; 154: 124-130
        • Rodriguez A.C.
        • Blanchard Z.
        • Maurer K.A.
        • Gertz J.
        Estrogen signaling in endometrial cancer: a key oncogenic pathway with several open questions.
        Horm Cancer. 2019; 10: 51-63
        • Falcone F.
        • Normanno N.
        • Losito N.S.
        • et al.
        Application of the Proactive Molecular Risk Classifier for Endometrial Cancer (ProMisE) to patients conservatively treated: outcomes from an institutional series.
        Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2019; 240: 220-225
        • Zakhour M.
        • Cohen J.G.
        • Gibson A.
        • et al.
        Abnormal mismatch repair and other clinicopathologic predictors of poor response to progestin treatment in young women with endometrial complex atypical hyperplasia and well-differentiated endometrial adenocarcinoma: a consecutive case series.
        BJOG. 2017; 124: 1576-1583