Endoplasmic reticulum stress in complex atypical hyperplasia as a possible predictor of occult carcinoma and progestin response

Predicting Progestin Therapy Response With PTEN, PAX2, and β-Catenin in Patients With Endometrioid Precancer

This study investigates the predictive value of biomarkers PTEN, PAX2, and β-catenin for therapeutic outcomes in patients with atypical endometrial hyperplasia or endometrioid intraepithelial neoplasia undergoing progestin therapy. In a retrospective study of 128 patients, we analyzed a total of 351 endometrial biopsy samples and categorized outcomes into responders (absence of residual disease) and nonresponders (presence of residual disease). We found aberrant biomarker expression in pretreatment cases: 48% for PTEN, 65% for PAX2, and 36% for β-catenin. Approximately 77.3% of patients responded to progestin treatment, with nonresponders showing significantly higher initial PTEN loss (75.86% vs 39.79%, P < 0.001). Nonresponders also demonstrated significant PTEN loss (53.33% vs 20.55%, P < 0.001), PAX2 loss (57.33% vs 41.22%, P < 0.05), and β-catenin nuclear staining (53.45% vs 27.91%, P < 0.01) in follow-up samples. In addition, nonresponders exhibited lower recovery of intact PTEN and PAX2, along with higher β-catenin aberrancy in cases initially showing normal β-catenin levels. We conclude that persistent aberrant PTEN and PAX2 expression, coupled with emerging aberrant β-catenin in follow-ups, indicates a greater likelihood of treatment failure. Conversely, the absence of these aberrations suggests successful progestin therapy. Our findings highlight the utility of this 3-marker panel in assessing residual disease status and predicting progestin treatment outcomes, thus offering critical insights for patient management.

Identification of the role of endoplasmic reticulum stress genes in endometrial cancer and their association with tumor immunity

BACKGROUND

Endometrial cancer (EC) is one of the worldwide gynecological malignancies. Endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress is the cellular homeostasis disturbance that participates in cancer progression. However, the mechanisms of ER Stress on EC have not been fully elucidated.

METHOD

The ER Stress-related genes were obtained from Gene Set Enrichment Analysis (GSEA) and GeneCards, and the RNA-seq and clinical data were downloaded from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA). The risk signature was constructed by the Cox regression and the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) analysis. The significance of the risk signature and clinical factors were tested by time-dependent receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, and the selected were to build a nomogram. The immunity correlation was particularly analyzed, including the related immune cells, pathways, and immune checkpoints. Functional enrichment, potential chemotherapies, and in vitro validation were also conducted.

RESULT

An ER Stress-based risk signature, consisting of TRIB3, CREB3L3, XBP1, and PPP1R15A was established. Patients were randomly divided into training and testing groups with 1:1 ratio for subsequent calculation and validation. Based on risk scores, high- and low-risk subgroups were classified, and low-risk subgroup demonstrated better prognosis. The Area Under Curve (AUC) demonstrated a reliable predictive capability of the risk signature. The majority of significantly different immune cells and pathways were enriched more in low-risk subgroup. Similarly, several typical immune checkpoints, expressed higher in low-risk subgroup. Patients of the two subgroups responded differently to chemotherapies.

CONCLUSION

We established an ER Stress-based risk signature that could effectively predict EC patients' prognosis and their immune correlation.

Endometrial Cancer in Reproductive Age: Fertility-Sparing Approach and Reproductive Outcomes

Endometrial cancer is the most common gynecologic malignancy in developed countries and approximately 7% of the women with endometrial cancer are below the age of 45. Management of endometrial cancer in young women who desire to maintain fertility presents a unique set of challenges since the standard surgical treatment based on hysterectomy and salpingo-oophorectomy is often not compatible with the patient's goals. A fertility-preserving approach can be considered in selected patients with early stage and low-grade endometrial cancer. An increasing amount of data suggest that oncologic outcomes are not compromised if a conservative approach is utilized with close monitoring until childbearing is completed. If a fertility-preserving approach is not possible, assisted reproductive technologies can assist patients in achieving their fertility goals.

Role of the pathologist in assessing response to treatment of ovarian and endometrial cancers

Standardisation of pathological evaluation of tissue responses to therapy permits robust stratification of patient outcomes for management decisions and allows comparison of results across clinical trials. In gynaecological pathology there are two major areas where pathological assessment of treatment response is currently used to determine ongoing therapy. High-grade serous carcinoma (HGSC) of tubo-ovarian origin frequently presents as high-stage disease and may be managed by neoadjuvant chemotherapy with debulking surgery. The chemotherapy response score (CRS) is a reproducible, validated three-tiered morphological scoring system to assess the response of HGSC to treatment. Interobserver agreement is shown to be substantial following online training, and women with CRS3 have significantly improved progression-free and overall survival. Low-grade endometrioid endometrial cancer and atypical hyperplasia/endometrioid intraepithelial neoplasia may be managed by progestogenic therapy in women who wish to preserve fertility or for whom medical co-morbidities preclude surgical management. The response to treatment is assessed histologically in successive endometrial biopsies. The histological parameters are well described, but the pathological classification of treatment response is still under development. Pathological assessment of the response to treatment is incorporated into clinical guidelines.

Progestin therapy for obese women with complex atypical hyperplasia: levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device vs systemic therapy

BACKGROUND

Though hysterectomy remains the standard treatment for complex atypical hyperplasia, patients who desire fertility or who are poor surgical candidates may opt for progestin therapy. However, the effectiveness of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device compared to systemic therapy in the treatment of complex atypical hyperplasia has not been well studied.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to examine differences in treatment response between local progestin therapy with the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device and systemic progestin therapy in women with complex atypical hyperplasia.

METHODS

This single-institution retrospective study examined women with complex atypical hyperplasia who received progestin therapy between 2003 and 2018. Treatment response was assessed by histopathology on subsequent biopsies. Time-dependent analyses of complete response and progression to cancer were performed comparing the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device and systemic therapy. A propensity score inverse probability of treatment weighting model was used to create a weighted cohort that differed based on treatment type but was similar with respect to other characteristics. An interaction-term analysis was performed to examine the impact of body habitus on treatment response, and an interrupted time-series analysis was employed to assess if changes in treatment patterns correlated with outcomes over time.

RESULTS

A total of 245 women with complex atypical hyperplasia received progestin therapy (levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device n = 69 and systemic therapy n = 176). The mean age and body mass index were 36.9 years and 40.0 kg/m², respectively. In the patient-level analysis, women who received the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device had higher rates of complete response (78.7% vs 46.7%; adjusted hazard ratio, 3.32; 95% confidence interval, 2.39-4.62) and a lower likelihood of progression to cancer (4.5% vs 15.7%; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.11-0.73) compared to those who received systemic therapy. In particular, women with class III obesity derived a higher relative benefit from levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device therapy in achieving complete response compared to systemic therapy: class III obesity, adjusted hazard ratio 4.72, 95% confidence interval 2.83-7.89; class I-II obesity, adjusted hazard ratio 1.83, 95% confidence interval 1.09-3.09; and nonobese, adjusted hazard ratio 1.26, 95% confidence interval 0.40-3.95. In the cohort-level analysis, the obesity rate increased during the study period (77.8% to 88.2%, 13.4% relative increase, P = .033) and levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device use significantly increased after 2007 (6.3% to 82.7%, 13.2-fold increase, P < .001), both concomitant with a higher proportion of women achieving complete response (32.9% to 81.4%, 2.5-fold increase, P = .005).

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests that local therapy with the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device may be more effective than systemic therapy for women with complex atypical hyperplasia who opt for nonsurgical treatment, particularly in morbidly obese women. Shifts in treatment paradigm during the study period toward increased levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device use also led to improved complete response rates despite increasing rates of obesity.

Improving response to progestin treatment of low-grade endometrial cancer

OBJECTIVES

This review examines how response rates to progestin treatment of low-grade endometrial cancer can be improved. In addition to providing a brief overview of the pathogenesis of low-grade endometrial cancer, we discuss limitations in the current classification of endometrial cancer and how stratification may be refined using molecular markers to reproducibly identify 'low-risk' cancers which may represent the best candidates for progestin therapy. We also discuss constraints in current approaches to progestin treatment of low-grade endometrial cancer and perform a systematic review of predictive biomarkers.

METHODS

PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Cochrane Library were searched for studies reporting pre-treatment biomarkers associated with outcome in women with low-grade endometrial cancer or endometrial hyperplasia with an intact uterus who received progestin treatment. Studies of fewer than 50 women were excluded. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (ID 152374). A descriptive synthesis of pre-treatment predictive biomarkers reported in the included studies was conducted.

RESULTS

Of 1908 records reviewed, 19 studies were included. Clinical features such as age or body mass index cannot predict progestin response. Lesions defined as 'low-risk' by FIGO criteria (stage 1A, grade 1) can respond well; however, the reproducibility and prognostic ability of the current histopathological classification system is suboptimal. Molecular markers can be reproducibly assessed, have been validated as prognostic biomarkers, and may inform patient selection for progestin treatment. DNA polymerase epsilon (POLE)-ultramutated tumors and a subset of p53 wild-type or DNA mismatch repair (MMR)-deficient tumors with 'low-risk' features (eg, progesterone and estrogen receptor-positive) may have improved response rates, though this needs to be validated.

DISCUSSION

Molecular markers can identify cases which may be candidates for progestin treatment. More work is needed to validate these biomarkers and potentially identify new ones. Predictive biomarkers are anticipated to inform future research into progestin treatment of low-grade endometrial cancer and ultimately improve patient outcomes.

Concurrent and future risk of endometrial cancer in women with endometrial hyperplasia: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To inform treatment decisions in women diagnosed with endometrial hyperplasia, quantification of the potential for concurrent endometrial cancer and the future risk of progression to cancer is required.

METHODS

We identified studies up to September 2018 that reported on the prevalence of concurrent cancer (within three months of endometrial hyperplasia diagnosis), or the incidence of cancer, identified at least three months after hyperplasia diagnosis. Random-effects meta-analyses produced pooled estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

A total of 36 articles were identified; 15 investigating concurrent and 21 progression to cancer. In pooled analysis of 11 studies of atypical hyperplasia, the pooled prevalence of concurrent endometrial cancer was 32.6% (95% CI: 24.1%, 42.4%) while no studies evaluated concurrent cancer in non-atypical hyperplasia. The risk of progression to cancer was high in atypical hyperplasia (n = 5 studies, annual incidence rate = 8.2%, 95% CI 3.9%, 17.3%) and only one study reported on non-atypical hyperplasia (annual incidence rate = 2.6%, 95% CI: 0.6%, 10.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, a third of women with atypical hyperplasia had concurrent endometrial cancer, although the number of studies, especially population-based, is small. Progression to cancer in atypical hyperplasia was high, but few studies were identified. Population-based estimates are required, in both atypical and non-atypical hyperplasia patients to better inform treatment strategies.

PGK1 and GRP78 overexpression correlates with clinical significance and poor prognosis in Chinese endometrial cancer patients

The aim of this study was to measure the expression patterns of PGK1 and GRP78 in normal endometrial tissues and endometrial carcinoma, and associations between their combined effects and the pathological features of endometrial carcinoma. We used 30 normal endometrial tissue samples and 130 endometrial carcinoma samples, and separately evaluated PGK1 and GRP78 protein expression by immunohistochemistry. Scores ranging from 0 to 9 were obtained by multiplying the percentage of positive cells by the staining intensity (0–3). Immunohistochemical analysis revealed increased PGK1 and GRP78 expression in the cytoplasm of endometrial carcinoma cells compared with that in normal endometrial tissues. High PGK1 expression positively correlated with the FIGO stage (P < 0.001), histological grade (P = 0.002), and lymph node status (P < 0.001). High GRP78 expression positively correlated with the pathological type (P = 0.0125), FIGO stage (P < 0.001), and lymph node status (P < 0.001). In addition, PGK1 overexpression was positively correlated with GRP78 overexpression in endometrial carcinoma patients (P < 0.001), and the concurrent expression of both oncogenes in endometrial carcinoma patients correlated significantly with the lymph node status (P < 0.001) and FIGO stage (P < 0.001). Patients with high PGK1 and GRP78 expression levels had poorer overall survival rates than those with low expression levels of both proteins (P < 0.001). Our results suggested that the co-occurrence of PGK1 and GRP78 expression is potentially an unfavorable factor for endometrial carcinoma progression.