Lisa Vermij

Prevalence and Prognosis of Lynch Syndrome and Sporadic Mismatch Repair Deficiency in Endometrial Cancer

Abstract Background Standard screening of endometrial cancer (EC) for Lynch syndrome (LS) is gaining traction; however, the prognostic impact of an underlying hereditary etiology is unknown. We established the prevalence, prognosis, and subsequent primary cancer incidence of patients with LS-associated EC in relation to sporadic mismatch repair deficient (MMRd)-EC in the large combined Post Operative Radiation Therapy in Endometrial Carcinoma-1, -2, and -3 trial cohort. Methods After MMR-immunohistochemistry, MLH1-promoter methylation testing, and next-generation sequencing, tumors were classified into 3 groups according to the molecular cause of their MMRd-EC. Kaplan-Meier method, log-rank test, and Cox model were used for survival analysis. Competing risk analysis was used to estimate the subsequent cancer probability. All statistical tests were 2-sided. Results Among the 1336 ECs, 410 (30.7%) were MMRd. A total of 380 (92.7%) were fully triaged: 275 (72.4%) were MLH1-hypermethylated MMRd-ECs; 36 (9.5%) LS MMRd-ECs, and 69 (18.2%) MMRd-ECs due to other causes. Limiting screening of EC patients to 60 years or younger or to 70 years or younger would have resulted in missing 18 (50.0%) and 6 (16.7%) LS diagnoses, respectively. Five-year recurrence-free survival was 91.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 83.1% to 100%; hazard ratio = 0.45, 95% CI = 0.16 to 1.24, P = .12) for LS, 95.5% (95% CI = 90.7% to 100%; hazard ratio = 0.17, 95% CI = 0.05 to 0.55, P = .003) for “other” vs 78.6% (95% CI = 73.8% to 83.7%) for MLH1-hypermethylated MMRd-EC. The probability of subsequent LS-associated cancer at 10 years was 11.6% (95% CI = 0.0% to 24.7%), 1.5% (95% CI = 0.0% to 4.3%), and 7.0% (95% CI = 3.0% to 10.9%) within the LS, “other,” and MLH1-hypermethylated MMRd-EC groups, respectively. Conclusions The LS prevalence in the Post Operative Radiation Therapy in Endometrial Carcinoma trial population was 2.8% and among MMRd-ECs was 9.5%. Patients with LS-associated ECs showed a trend towards better recurrence-free survival and higher risk for second cancers compared with patients with MLH1-hypermethylated MMRd-EC.

Clinical Behavior and Molecular Landscape of Stage I p53-Abnormal Low-Grade Endometrioid Endometrial Carcinomas

Abstract Purpose: The clinical significance of the p53-abnormal (p53abn) molecular subtype in stage I low-grade endometrioid endometrial carcinoma (EEC) is debated. We aimed to review pathologic and molecular characteristics, and outcomes of stage I low-grade p53abn EEC in a large international cohort. Experimental Design: Previously diagnosed stage I p53abn EC (POLE–wild-type, mismatch repair–proficient) low-grade EEC from Canadian retrospective cohorts and PORTEC-1&2 trials were included. Pathology review was performed by six expert gynecologic pathologists blinded to p53 status. IHC profiling, next-generation sequencing, and shallow whole-genome sequencing was performed. Kaplan–Meier method was used for survival analysis. Results: We identified 55 stage I p53abn low-grade EEC among 3,387 cases (2.5%). On pathology review, 17 cases (31%) were not diagnosed as low-grade EEC by any pathologists, whereas 26 cases (47%) were diagnosed as low-grade EEC by at least three pathologists. The IHC and molecular profile of the latter cases were consistent with low-grade EEC morphology (ER/PR positivity, patchy p16 expression, PIK3CA and PTEN mutations) but they also showed features of p53abn EC (TP53 mutations, many copy-number alterations). These cases had a clinically relevant risk of disease recurrence (5-year recurrence-free survival 77%), with pelvic and/or distant recurrences observed in 12% of the patients. Conclusions: A subset of p53abn EC is morphologically low-grade EEC and exhibit genomic instability. Even for stage I disease, p53abn low-grade EEC are at substantial risk of disease recurrence. These findings highlight the clinical relevance of universal p53-testing, even in low-grade EEC, to identify women at increased risk of recurrence.

Clinical and Molecular Characteristics of High-Risk, Recurrent, or Metastatic Endometrial Cancer That Is Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2–Low

PURPOSE Recent success of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–targeted antibody-drug-conjugate trastuzumab-deruxtecan in HER2-low and HER2-positive tumors has sparked interest in examining the HER2 status of tumors not traditionally associated with HER2 amplification. Despite the increasing number of systemic treatment options, patients with advanced endometrial cancer (EC) still face a poor prognosis. This study evaluates HER2-low status in over 800 EC, correlating HER2 with both molecular and clinical features. METHODS HER2 status was determined by immunohistochemistry (IHC) and dual in situ hybridization (DISH) on four studies of previously classified high-risk EC (PORTEC-3 and Medical Spectrum Twente cohort), recurrent or metastatic EC (DOMEC), and a primary stage IV cohort. EC was classified as HER2-negative (IHC 0), HER2-low (IHC 1+/2+ without amplification), or HER2-positive (IHC 3+ or DISH-confirmed amplification). Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox proportional hazards models assessed the independence of any prognostic impact of HER2 status. RESULTS HER2 status was determined in 806 EC: 74.8% were HER2-negative, 17.2% HER2-low, and 7.9% HER2-positive. HER2-low was found across all molecular classes and histotypes. The highest rates of HER2-low and HER2-positive tumors were in recurrent or metastatic EC (35.6% and 15.6%), followed by primary stage IV EC (29.9% and 12.4%) and high-risk EC (14.2% and 6.8%). HER2 status had no independent prognostic value. CONCLUSION A quarter of high-risk, metastatic, or recurrent EC exhibited HER2 overexpression. The presence of HER2 overexpression in all clinical and molecular categories highlights the need for broad testing and offers treatment options for a wide range of patients.

Prognostic refinement of NSMP high-risk endometrial cancers using oestrogen receptor immunohistochemistry

Abstract Background Risk-assessment of endometrial cancer (EC) is based on clinicopathological factors and molecular subgroup. It is unclear whether adding hormone receptor expression, L1CAM expression or CTNNB1 status yields prognostic refinement. Methods Paraffin-embedded tumour samples of women with high-risk EC (HR-EC) from the PORTEC-3 trial ( n  = 424), and a Dutch prospective clinical cohort called MST ( n  = 256), were used. All cases were molecularly classified. Expression of L1CAM, ER and PR were analysed by whole-slide immunohistochemistry and CTNNB1 mutations were assessed with a next-generation sequencing. Kaplan–Meier method, log-rank tests and Cox’s proportional hazard models were used for survival analysis. Results In total, 648 HR-EC were included. No independent prognostic value of ER, PR, L1CAM, and CTNNB1 was found, while age, stage, and adjuvant chemotherapy had an independent impact on risk of recurrence. Subgroup-analysis showed that only in NSMP HR-EC, ER-positivity was independently associated with a reduced risk of recurrence (HR 0.33, 95%CI 0.15–0.75). Conclusions We confirmed the prognostic impact of the molecular classification, age, stage, and adjuvant CTRT in a large cohort of high-risk EC. ER-positivity is a strong favourable prognostic factor in NSMP HR-EC and identifies a homogeneous subgroup of NSMP tumours. Assessment of ER status in high-risk NSMP EC is feasible in clinical practice and could improve risk stratification and treatment.

Performance of a HER2 testing algorithm specific for p53‐abnormal endometrial cancer

AimsHuman epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) amplification in endometrial cancer (EC) is almost completely confined to the p53‐abnormal (p53abn) molecular subtype and independent of histological subtype. HER2 testing should therefore be molecular subtype‐directed. However, the most optimal approach for HER2 testing in EC has not been fully established. Therefore, we developed an EC‐specific HER2 immunohistochemistry (IHC) scoring method and evaluated its reproducibility and performance to establish an optimal diagnostic HER2 testing algorithm for p53abn EC.Methods and resultsHER2 IHC slides of 78 p53abn EC were scored by six gynaecopathologists according to predefined EC‐specific IHC scoring criteria. Interobserver agreement was calculated using Fleiss’ kappa and the first‐order agreement coefficient (AC1). The consensus IHC score was compared with HER2 dual in‐situ hybridisation (DISH) results. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated. A substantial interobserver agreement was found using three‐ or two‐tiered scoring [κ = 0.675, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.633–0.717; AC1 = 0.723, 95% CI = 0.643–0.804 and κ = 0.771, 95% CI = 0.714–0.828; AC1 = 0.774, 95% CI = 0.684–0.865, respectively]. Sensitivity and specificity for the identification of HER2‐positive EC was 100 and 97%, respectively, using a HER2 testing algorithm that recommends DISH in all cases with moderate membranous staining in >10% of the tumour (IHC+). Performing DISH on all IHC‐2+ and ‐3+ cases yields a sensitivity and specificity of 100%.ConclusionsOur EC‐specific HER2 IHC scoring method is reproducible. A screening strategy based on IHC scoring on all cases with subsequent DISH testing on IHC‐2+/‐3+ cases has perfect test accuracy for identifying HER2‐positive EC.

Incorporation of molecular characteristics into endometrial cancer management

Histopathological evaluation including subtyping and grading is the current cornerstone for endometrial cancer (EC) classification. This provides clinicians with prognostic information and input for further treatment recommendations. Nonetheless, patients with histologically similar ECs may have very different outcomes, notably in patients with high‐grade endometrial carcinomas. For endometrial cancer, four molecular subgroups have undergone extensive studies in recent years: POLE ultramutated (POLEmut), mismatch repair‐deficient (MMRd), p53 mutant (p53abn) and those EC lacking any of these alterations, referred to as NSMP (non‐specific molecular profile). Several large studies confirm the prognostic relevance of these molecular subgroups. However, this ‘histomolecular’ approach has so far not been implemented in clinical routine. The ongoing PORTEC4a trial is the first clinical setting in which the added value of integrating molecular parameters in adjuvant treatment decisions will be determined. For diagnostics, the incorporation of the molecular parameters in EC classification will add a level of objectivity which will yield biologically more homogeneous subclasses. Here we illustrate how the management of individual EC patients may be impacted when applying the molecular EC classification. We describe our current approach to the integrated diagnoses of EC with a focus on scenarios with conflicting morphological and molecular findings. We also address several pitfalls accompanying the diagnostic implementation of molecular EC classification and give practical suggestions for diagnostic scenarios.

Randomized Trial of Radiation Therapy With or Without Chemotherapy for Endometrial Cancer

RATIONALE: Drugs used in chemotherapy, such as cisplatin, paclitaxel, and carboplatin, work in different ways to stop the growth of tumor cells, either by killing the cells or by stopping them from dividing. Radiation therapy uses high-energy x-rays to kill tumor cells. Giving chemotherapy and radiation therapy after surgery may kill any tumor cells that remain after surgery. It is not yet known whether giving chemotherapy together with radiation therapy is more effective than giving radiation therapy alone in treating endometrial cancer. PURPOSE: This randomized phase III trial is studying chemotherapy and radiation therapy to see how well they work compared with radiation therapy alone in treating patients with high-risk, stage I, stage II, or stage III endometrial cancer.