PROfiling Based Endometrial Cancer Adjuvant Therapy

NCT05179447RecruitingNAINTERVENTIONAL

Summary

Key Facts

Lead Sponsor

Women's Hospital School Of Medicine Zhejiang University

Enrollment

590

Start Date

2022-01-24

Completion Date

2026-12-31

Study Type

INTERVENTIONAL

Official Title

Randomized Phase III Trial of Molecular Profile-based Versus Standard Recommendations for Adjuvant Therapy for Women With Early Stage Endometrioid Adenocarcinoma

Interventions

Vaginal brachytherapyExternal beam radiotherapyObservationChemoradiation therapy

Conditions

Endometrial Cancer Stage IEndometrial Cancer Stage II

Eligibility

Age Range

18 Years – 75 Years

Sex

FEMALE

Inclusion Criteria:

1. Surgery consisting of a total abdominal or laparoscopic hysterectomy, bilateral salpingectomy, pelvic lymphadenectomy or sentinel lymph node mapping and dissection, with or without para-aortic lymphadenectomy, oophorectomy
2. Histologically confirmed endometrioid type endometrial carcinoma, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2009 stage I, with one of the following combinations of stage and grade:

   Stage I A, grade 3 Stage I B, grade 1 or 2 Stage I B, grade 3 Stage II
3. World Health Organization (WHO)-performance status 0-2
4. Written informed consent

Exclusion Criteria:

1. With residual disease
2. Any other stage and type of endometrial carcinoma
3. Histological types serous carcinoma or clear cell carcinoma (at least 10% if mixed type), or undifferentiated or neuroendocrine carcinoma
4. Uterine sarcoma (including carcinosarcoma)
5. Previous malignancy (except for non-melanomatous skin cancer)
6. Previous pelvic radiotherapy
7. Expected interval between the operation and start of radiotherapy exceeding 8 weeks

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes

Total recurrence

Vaginal, pelvic or distant recurrence as first failure

Time frame: 3 years

Secondary Outcomes

Relapse-free survival

Relapse-free survival (survival without relapse)

Time frame: 3 years, 5 years

Survival

Overall survival (all-cause death)

Time frame: 3 years, 5 years

Adverse events

Treatment-related symptoms according to CTCAE v 5.0

Time frame: 3 years, 5 years

Health-related cancer-specific quality of life

Quality of Life Core Questionnaire (QLQC-30) - clinically relevant changes on Quality of Life Core Questionnaire-30 functioning scales, general quality of life and general cancer symptoms, quite a bit/very much vs no or mild symptoms

Time frame: 3 years, 5 years

Endometrial cancer related health care costs

All hospital based health care costs used with primary treatment or during followup for treatment of adverse events and/or treatment for relapse

Time frame: 3 years, 5 years

Locations

Tongji Hospital, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China

Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, Jinan, China

Women's Hospital School of Medicine Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China

Peking University Peoples Hospital, Beijing, China

Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, China

Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Hospital, Guangzhou, China

Ningbo First Hospital, Ningbo, China

Ningbo Women and Children's Hospital, Ningbo, China

Obstetrics & Gynecology Hospital of Fudan University, Shanghai, China

Shanghai First Maternity and Infant Hospital, Shanghai, China

Linked Papers

2020-08-04

Molecular Classification of the PORTEC-3 Trial for High-Risk Endometrial Cancer: Impact on Prognosis and Benefit From Adjuvant Therapy

PURPOSE The randomized Adjuvant Chemoradiotherapy Versus Radiotherapy Alone in Women With High-Risk Endometrial Cancer (PORTEC-3) trial investigated the benefit of combined adjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy (CTRT) versus radiotherapy alone (RT) for women with high-risk endometrial cancer (EC). Because The Cancer Genome Atlas defined an EC molecular classification with strong prognostic value, we investigated prognosis and impact of chemotherapy for each molecular subgroup using tissue samples from PORTEC-3 trial participants. METHODS Paraffin-embedded tissues of 423 consenting patients were collected. Immunohistochemistry for p53 and mismatch repair (MMR) proteins, and DNA sequencing for POLE exonuclease domain were done to classify tumors as p53 abnormal (p53abn), POLE-ultramutated ( POLEmut), MMR-deficient (MMRd), or no specific molecular profile (NSMP). The primary end point was recurrence-free survival (RFS). Kaplan-Meier method, log-rank test, and Cox model were used for analysis. RESULTS Molecular analysis was successful in 410 high-risk EC (97%), identifying the 4 subgroups: p53abn EC (n = 93; 23%), POLEmut (n = 51; 12%), MMRd (n = 137; 33%), and NSMP (n = 129; 32%). Five-year RFS was 48% for patients with p53abn EC, 98% for POLEmut EC, 72% for MMRd EC, and 74% for NSMP EC ( P < .001). The 5-year RFS with CTRT versus RT for p53abn EC was 59% versus 36% ( P = .019); 100% versus 97% for patients with POLEmut EC ( P = .637); 68% versus 76% ( P = .428) for MMRd EC; and 80% versus 68% ( P = .243) for NSMP EC. CONCLUSION Molecular classification has strong prognostic value in high-risk EC, with significantly improved RFS with adjuvant CTRT for p53abn tumors, regardless of histologic type. Patients with POLEmut EC had an excellent RFS in both trial arms. EC molecular classification should be incorporated in the risk stratification of these patients as well as in future trials to target specific subgroups of patients.

2020-01-29

Interpretation of somatic POLE mutations in endometrial carcinoma

AbstractPathogenic somatic missense mutations within the DNA polymerase epsilon (POLE) exonuclease domain define the important subtype of ultramutated tumours (‘POLE‐ultramutated’) within the novel molecular classification of endometrial carcinoma (EC). However, clinical implementation of this classifier requires systematic evaluation of the pathogenicity of POLE mutations. To address this, we examined base changes, tumour mutational burden (TMB), DNA microsatellite instability (MSI) status, POLE variant frequency, and the results from six in silico tools on 82 ECs with whole‐exome sequencing from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA). Of these, 41 had one of five known pathogenic POLE exonuclease domain mutations (EDM) and showed characteristic genomic alterations: C>A substitution > 20%, T>G substitutions > 4%, C>G substitutions < 0.6%, indels < 5%, TMB > 100 mut/Mb. A scoring system to assess these alterations (POLE‐score) was developed; based on their scores, 7/18 (39%) additional tumours with EDM were classified as POLE‐ultramutated ECs, and the six POLE mutations present in these tumours were considered pathogenic. Only 1/23 (4%) tumours with non‐EDM showed these genomic alterations, indicating that a large majority of mutations outside the exonuclease domain are not pathogenic. The infrequent combination of MSI‐H with POLE EDM led us to investigate the clinical significance of this association. Tumours with pathogenic POLE EDM co‐existent with MSI‐H showed genomic alterations characteristic of POLE‐ultramutated ECs. In a pooled analysis of 3361 ECs, 13 ECs with DNA mismatch repair deficiency (MMRd)/MSI‐H and a pathogenic POLE EDM had a 5‐year recurrence‐free survival (RFS) of 92.3%, comparable to previously reported POLE‐ultramutated ECs. Additionally, 14 cases with non‐pathogenic POLE EDM and MMRd/MSI‐H had a 5‐year RFS of 76.2%, similar to MMRd/MSI‐H, POLE wild‐type ECs, suggesting that these should be categorised as MMRd, rather than POLE‐ultramutated ECs for prognostication. This work provides guidance on classification of ECs with POLE mutations, facilitating implementation of POLE testing in routine clinical care. © 2019 The Authors. The Journal of Pathology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland.