Lea A. Moukarzel

Microsatellite Instability–High Endometrial Cancers with MLH1 Promoter Hypermethylation Have Distinct Molecular and Clinical Profiles

Abstract Purpose: Microsatellite instability–high (MSI-H) endometrial carcinomas are underpinned by distinct mechanisms of DNA mismatch repair deficiency (MMR-D). We sought to characterize the clinical and genetic features of MSI-H endometrial cancers harboring germline or somatic mutations in MMR genes or MLH1 promoter hypermethylation (MLH1ph). Experimental Design: Of > 1,100 patients with endometrial cancer that underwent clinical tumor-normal sequencing, 184 had MSI-H endometrial cancers due to somatic MMR mutations or MLH1ph, or harbored pathogenic germline MMR mutations. Clinicopathologic features, mutational landscape, and tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte (TIL) scores were compared among MMR-D groups using nonparametric tests. Log-rank tests were used for categorical associations; Kaplan–Meier method and Wald test based on Cox proportional hazards models were employed for continuous variables and survival analyses. Results: Compared with patients with germline (n = 25) and somatic (n = 39) mutations, patients with MLH1ph endometrial cancers (n = 120) were older (P < 0.001), more obese (P = 0.001) and had more advanced disease at diagnosis (P = 0.025). MLH1ph endometrial cancers were enriched for JAK1 somatic mutations as opposed to germline MMR-D endometrial cancers which showed enrichment for pathogenic ERBB2 mutations. MLH1ph endometrial cancers exhibited lower tumor mutational burden and TIL scores compared with endometrial cancers harboring germline or somatic MMR mutations (P < 0.01). MLH1ph endometrial cancer patients had shorter progression-free survival (PFS) on univariate analysis, but in multivariable models, stage at diagnosis remained the only predictor of survival. For stage I/II endometrial cancer, two-year PFS was inferior for patients with MLH1ph endometrial cancers compared with germline and somatic MMR groups (70% vs. 100%, respectively). Conclusions: MLH1ph endometrial cancers likely constitute a distinct clinicopathologic entity compared with germline and somatic MMR-D ECs with potential treatment implications.

Molecular Subclasses of Clear Cell Ovarian Carcinoma and Their Impact on Disease Behavior and Outcomes

Abstract Purpose: To identify molecular subclasses of clear cell ovarian carcinoma (CCOC) and assess their impact on clinical presentation and outcomes. Experimental Design: We profiled 421 primary CCOCs that passed quality control using a targeted deep sequencing panel of 163 putative CCOC driver genes and whole transcriptome sequencing of 211 of these tumors. Molecularly defined subgroups were identified and tested for association with clinical characteristics and overall survival. Results: We detected a putative somatic driver mutation in at least one candidate gene in 95% (401/421) of CCOC tumors including ARID1A (in 49% of tumors), PIK3CA (49%), TERT (20%), and TP53 (16%). Clustering of cancer driver mutations and RNA expression converged upon two distinct subclasses of CCOC. The first was dominated by ARID1A-mutated tumors with enriched expression of canonical CCOC genes and markers of platinum resistance; the second was largely comprised of tumors with TP53 mutations and enriched for the expression of genes involved in extracellular matrix organization and mesenchymal differentiation. Compared with the ARID1A-mutated group, women with TP53-mutated tumors were more likely to have advanced-stage disease, no antecedent history of endometriosis, and poorer survival, driven by their advanced stage at presentation. In women with ARID1A-mutated tumors, there was a trend toward a lower rate of response to first-line platinum-based therapy. Conclusions: Our study suggests that CCOC consists of two distinct molecular subclasses with distinct clinical presentation and outcomes, with potential relevance to both traditional and experimental therapy responsiveness. See related commentary by Lheureux, p. 4838

Posterior pelvic exenteration, a crucial component in the surgeon’s toolbox for optimizing surgical cytoreduction for advanced ovarian cancer