Second Opinion Expert Pathology in Endometrial Cancer: Potential Clinical Implications

New clinicopathological concept of endometrial carcinoma with integration of histological features and molecular profiles

The dual-stratified pathway of endometrial carcinomas (ECs) has long been dominant. However, in 2013, The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) defined four EC subgroups with distinctive prognoses. Inspired by TCGA, in 2018, the Proactive Molecular Risk Classifier for Endometrial Cancer (ProMisE) provided four pragmatic molecular classifiers to apply surrogate immunohistochemical markers to TCGA subgroup categorization. These trends prompted the revision of 2020 WHO Classification of Female Genital Tumors, 5th edition (2020 WHO classification), in which four molecular subtypes are recognized: POLE-ultramutated; mismatch repair-deficient; p53-mutant; and no specific molecular profile. In the 2020 WHO classification, the diagnostic algorithm is characterized by prioritizing POLEmut over other molecular abnormalities. Following the 2020 WHO classification, Federation of International Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) proposed a new staging system in 2023. The updated system focuses on diagnostic parameters, such as histological type and grade, lymphovascular space invasion, and molecular alterations. These new histomolecular diagnostic concepts of ECs are being accordingly introduced into the routine pathology practice. For the first time, the 2020 WHO classification includes mesonephric-like adenocarcinoma (MLA) as a novel histological entity, mimicking the conventional mesonephric adenocarcinoma, but is considered of Müllerian ductal origin.

Improving Endometrial cancer assessment by combining the new techniqUe of GENomic profiling with surgical Extra uterIne disEase assessment (EUGENIE)

BACKGROUND

The molecular classification of endometrial cancer revolutionized our knowledge of its biology but so far has not affected our surgical approach. The exact risk of extra-uterine metastasis and hence the type of surgical staging for each of the four molecular subgroups are currently unknown.

PRIMARY OBJECTIVE

To determine the association between molecular classification and disease stage.

STUDY HYPOTHESIS

Each endometrial cancer molecular subgroup has a specific pattern of spread and this pattern of spread could guide the extent of surgical staging.

TRIAL DESIGN

Prospective, multicenter study MAJOR INCLUSION/EXCLUSION CRITERIA: Participants eligible for inclusion in this study must meet all the following criteria: women ≥18 years with primary endometrial cancer, any histology and stage.

PRIMARY ENDPOINT

Number and site of metastasis in each endometrial cancer molecular subgroup.

SAMPLE SIZE

1000 patients will be enrolled.

ESTIMATED DATES FOR COMPLETING ACCRUAL AND PRESENTING RESULTS

The trial will last 6 years: 4 years of accrual, and 2 years of follow-up of all patients. Results on staging and oncological outcomes are expected in 2027 and 2029, respectively.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study has been accepted by UZ Leuven Ethical Committee. Belg. Reg. nr: B3222022000997.

ESGO/ESHRE/ESGE Guidelines for the fertility-sparing treatment of patients with endometrial carcinoma

Background: The standard surgical treatment of endometrial carcinoma (EC) consisting of total hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy drastically affects the quality of life of patients and creates a challenge for clinicians. Recent evidence-based guidelines of the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO), the European SocieTy for Radiotherapy & Oncology (ESTRO) and the European Society of Pathology (ESP) provide comprehensive guidelines on all relevant issues of diagnosis and treatment in EC in a multidisciplinary setting. While also addressing work-up for fertility preservation treatments and the management and follow-up for fertility preservation, it was considered relevant to further extend the guidance on fertility sparing treatment. Objectives: To define recommendations for fertility-sparing treatment of patients with endometrial carcinoma. Materials and Methods: ESGO/ESHRE/ESGE nominated an international multidisciplinary development group consisting of practicing clinicians and researchers who have demonstrated leadership and expertise in the care and research of EC (11 experts across Europe). To ensure that the guidelines are evidence-based, the literature published since 2016, identified from a systematic search was reviewed and critically appraised. In the absence of any clear scientific evidence, judgment was based on the professional experience and consensus of the development group. The guidelines are thus based on the best available evidence and expert agreement. Prior to publication, the guidelines were reviewed by 95 independent international practitioners in cancer care delivery and patient representatives. Results: The multidisciplinary development group formulated 48 recommendations for fertility-sparing treatment of patients with endometrial carcinoma in four sections: patient selection, tumour clinicopathological characteristics, treatment and special issues. Conclusions: These recommendations provide guidance to professionals caring for women with endometrial carcinoma, including but not limited to professionals in the field of gynaecological oncology, onco-fertility, reproductive surgery, endoscopy, conservative surgery, and histopathology, and will help towards a holistic and multidisciplinary approach for this challenging clinical scenario. What is new? A collaboration was set up between the ESGO, ESHRE and ESGE, aiming to develop clinically relevant and evidence-based guidelines focusing on key aspects of fertility-sparing treatment in order to improve the quality of care for women with endometrial carcinoma across Europe and worldwide.

ESGO/ESHRE/ESGE Guidelines for the fertility-sparing treatment of patients with endometrial carcinoma. Hum Reprod Open 2023;2023:hoac057. [PMID: 36756380 PMCID: PMC9900425 DOI: 10.1093/hropen/hoac057]

STUDY QUESTION

How should fertility-sparing treatment of patients with endometrial carcinoma be performed?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Forty-eight recommendations were formulated on fertility-sparing treatment of patients with endometrial carcinoma.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

The standard surgical treatment of endometrial carcinoma consisting of total hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy drastically affects the quality of life of patients and creates a challenge for clinicians. Recent evidence-based guidelines of the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO), the European SocieTy for Radiotherapy & Oncology (ESTRO) and the European Society of Pathology (ESP) provide comprehensive guidelines on all relevant issues of diagnosis and treatment in endometrial carcinoma in a multidisciplinary setting. While addressing also work-up for fertility preservation treatments and the management and follow-up for fertility preservation, it was considered relevant to further extend the guidance on fertility-sparing treatment.

STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION

A collaboration was set up between the ESGO, the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) and the European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy (ESGE), aiming to develop clinically relevant and evidence-based guidelines focusing on key aspects of fertility-sparing treatment in order to improve the quality of care for women with endometrial carcinoma across Europe and worldwide.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS

ESGO/ESHRE/ESGE nominated an international multidisciplinary development group consisting of practising clinicians and researchers who have demonstrated leadership and expertise in the care and research of endometrial carcinoma (11 experts across Europe). To ensure that the guidelines are evidence-based, the literature published since 2016, identified from a systematic search was reviewed and critically appraised. In the absence of any clear scientific evidence, judgement was based on the professional experience and consensus of the development group. The guidelines are thus based on the best available evidence and expert agreement. Prior to publication, the guidelines were reviewed by 95 independent international practitioners in cancer care delivery and patient representatives.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

The multidisciplinary development group formulated 48 recommendations in four sections; patient selection, tumour clinicopathological characteristics, treatment and special issues.

LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION

Of the 48 recommendations, none could be based on level I evidence and only 16 could be based on level II evidence, implicating that 66% of the recommendations are supported only by observational data, professional experience and consensus of the development group.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

These recommendations provide guidance to professionals caring for women with endometrial carcinoma, including but not limited to professionals in the field of gynaecological oncology, onco-fertility, reproductive surgery, endoscopy, conservative surgery and histopathology, and will help towards a holistic and multidisciplinary approach for this challenging clinical scenario.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS

All costs relating to the development process were covered from ESGO, ESHRE and ESGE funds. There was no external funding of the development process or manuscript production. G.S. has reported grants from MSD Italia S.r.l., advisory boards for Storz, Bayer, Astrazeneca, Metronic, TESARO Bio Italy S.r.l and Johnson & Johnson, and honoraria for lectures from Clovis Oncology Italy S.r.l. M.G. has reported advisory boards for Gedeon Richter and Merck. The other authors have reported no conflicts of interest.

DISCLAIMER

This document represents the views of ESHRE, ESGO and ESGE which are the result of consensus between the relevant stakeholders and where relevant based on the scientific evidence available at the time of preparation. The recommendations should be used for informational and educational purposes. They should not be interpreted as setting a standard of care, or be deemed inclusive of all proper methods of care nor exclusive of other methods of care reasonably directed to obtaining the same results. They do not replace the need for application of clinical judgement to each individual presentation, nor variations based on locality and facility type.

ESGO/ESHRE/ESGE Guidelines for the fertility-sparing treatment of patients with endometrial carcinoma

The standard surgical treatment of endometrial carcinoma, consisting of total hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, drastically affects the quality of life of patients and creates a challenge for clinicians. Recent evidence-based guidelines of the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO), the European SocieTy for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO), and the European Society of Pathology (ESP) provide comprehensive information on all relevant issues of diagnosis and treatment in endometrial carcinoma in a multidisciplinary setting. While addressing also work-up for fertility preservation treatments and the management and follow-up for fertility preservation, it was considered relevant to further extend the guidance on fertility-sparing treatment.A collaboration was set up between the ESGO, the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE), and the European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy (ESGE), aiming to develop clinically relevant and evidence-based guidelines focusing on key aspects of fertility-sparing treatment (patient selection, tumor clinicopathological characteristics, treatment, special issues) in order to improve the quality of care for women with endometrial carcinoma across Europe and worldwide.ESGO/ESHRE/ESGE nominated an international multidisciplinary development group consisting of practicing clinicians and researchers who have demonstrated leadership and expertise in the care and research of endometrial carcinoma (11 experts from across Europe). To ensure that the guidelines are evidence-based, the literature published since 2016, identified by a systematic search, was reviewed and critically appraised. In the absence of any clear scientific evidence, judgment was based on the professional experience and consensus of the development group. The guidelines are thus based on the best available evidence and expert agreement. Prior to publication, the guidelines were reviewed by 95 independent international practitioners in cancer care delivery and patient representatives.

ESGO/ESHRE/ESGE Guidelines for the fertility-sparing treatment of patients with endometrial carcinoma

Background

The standard surgical treatment of endometrial carcinoma (EC) consisting of total hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy drastically affects the quality of life of patients and creates a challenge for clinicians. Recent evidence-based guidelines of the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO), the European SocieTy for Radiotherapy & Oncology (ESTRO) and the European Society of Pathology (ESP) provide comprehensive guidelines on all relevant issues of diagnosis and treatment in EC in a multidisciplinary setting. While also addressing work-up for fertility preservation treatments and the management and follow-up for fertility preservation, it was considered relevant to further extend the guidance on fertility sparing treatment.

Objectives

To define recommendations for fertility-sparing treatment of patients with endometrial carcinoma.

Materials and Methods

ESGO/ESHRE/ESGE nominated an international multidisciplinary development group consisting of practicing clinicians and researchers who have demonstrated leadership and expertise in the care and research of EC (11 experts across Europe). To ensure that the guidelines are evidence-based, the literature published since 2016, identified from a systematic search was reviewed and critically appraised. In the absence of any clear scientific evidence, judgment was based on the professional experience and consensus of the development group. The guidelines are thus based on the best available evidence and expert agreement. Prior to publication, the guidelines were reviewed by 95 independent international practitioners in cancer care delivery and patient representatives.

Results

The multidisciplinary development group formulated 48 recommendations for fertility-sparing treatment of patients with endometrial carcinoma in four sections: patient selection, tumour clinicopathological characteristics, treatment and special issues.

Conclusions

These recommendations provide guidance to professionals caring for women with endometrial carcinoma, including but not limited to professionals in the field of gynaecological oncology, onco-fertility, reproductive surgery, endoscopy, conservative surgery, and histopathology, and will help towards a holistic and multidisciplinary approach for this challenging clinical scenario. What is new? A collaboration was set up between the ESGO, ESHRE and ESGE, aiming to develop clinically relevant and evidence-based guidelines focusing on key aspects of fertility-sparing treatment in order to improve the quality of care for women with endometrial carcinoma across Europe and worldwide.

Should Endometrial Cancer Treatment Be Centralized?

Endometrial cancer (EC) is the most common malignancy of the female genital tract in Western and emerging countries. In 2012, new cancer cases numbered 319,605, and 76,160 cancer deaths were diagnosed worldwide. ECs are usually diagnosed after menopause; 70% of ECs are diagnosed at an early stage with a favorable prognosis and a 5-year overall survival rate of 77%. On the contrary, women with advanced or recurrent disease have extremely poor outcomes because they show a low response rate to conventional chemotherapy. EC is generally considered easy to treat, although it presents a 5-year mortality of 25%. Though the guidelines (GLs) recommend treatment in specialized centers by physicians specializing in gynecologic oncology, most women are managed by general gynecologists, resulting in differences and discrepancies in clinical management. In this paper we reviewed the literature with the aim of highlighting where the treatment of EC patients requires gynecologic oncologists, as suggested by the GLs. Moreover, we sought to identify the causes of the lack of GL adherence, suggesting useful changes to ensure adequate treatment for all EC patients.

Histopathological Revision for Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasms in Expert Centers: Does It Make the Difference?

BACKGROUND

The correct histopathological diagnosis of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (GEP-NENs) is crucial for treatment selection and prognostication. It is also very challenging due to limited experience in nonexpert centers. Revision of pathology is standard of care for most patients who are referred to NEN expert centers.

OBJECTIVES

To describe the clinical impact of histopathological revision for GEP-NEN patients referred to an expert center.

METHODS

Retrospective multicenter analysis of all GEP-NENs receiving a histopathological revision in 6 European NEN expert centers (January 2016 to December 2016) to evaluate the impact on patient management.

RESULTS

175 patients were included and 14.7% referred for a second opinion. Histological samples were 69.1% biopsies, 23.4% surgical specimens, and 7.5% endoscopic resections. Histopathological changes due to revision included first assessment of Ki67 in 8.6% of cases, change in grading in 11.4% (3.4% G1 to G2; 5.7% G2 to G1; 0.6% G2 to G3; 1.7% G3 to G2), definition of tumor invasion in 10.8%, additional immunohistochemical staining in 2.3%, diagnosis of mixed adenoneuroendocrine carcinoma in 3.4%, exclusion of NEN in 3.4%, first diagnosis of NEN in 2.3%, and tumor differentiation for G3 in 1.7%. The revision had a clinical impact in 36.0% of patients, leading to a new therapeutic indication in 26.3%. The indication to then perform a new imaging test occurred in 21.1% and recommendation to follow-up with no further treatment in 6.3%.

CONCLUSIONS

Histopathological revision in expert centers for NENs can change the diagnosis, with a significant clinical impact in about one third of patients.

A Modern Approach to Endometrial Carcinoma: Will Molecular Classification Improve Precision Medicine in the Future?

Endometrial cancer has been histologically classified as either an estrogen-dependent cancer with a favorable outcome or an estrogen-independent cancer with a worse prognosis. These parameters, along with the clinical attributions, have been the basis for risk stratification. Recent molecular and histopathological findings have suggested a more complex approach to risk stratification. Findings from the Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network established four distinctive genomic groups: ultramutated, hypermutated, copy-number low and copy-number high prognostic subtypes. Subsequently, more molecular and histopathologic classifiers were evaluated for their prognostic and predictive value. The impact of molecular classification is evident and will be recognized by the upcoming WHO classification. Further research is needed to give rise to a new era of molecular-based endometrial carcinoma patient care.

Final validation of the ProMisE molecular classifier for endometrial carcinoma in a large population-based case series

Background

We have previously developed and confirmed a pragmatic molecular classifier for endometrial cancers; ProMisE (Proactive Molecular Risk Classifier for Endometrial Cancer). Inspired by the Cancer Genome Atlas, ProMisE identifies four prognostically distinct molecular subtypes and can be applied to diagnostic specimens (biopsy/curettings) enabling earlier informed decision-making. We have strictly adhered to the Institute of Medicine (IOM) guidelines for the development of genomic biomarkers, and herein present the final validation step of a locked-down classifier before clinical application.

Patients and methods

We assessed a retrospective cohort of women from the Tübingen University Women's Hospital treated for endometrial carcinoma between 2003 and 2013. Primary outcomes of overall, disease-specific, and progression-free survival were evaluated for clinical, pathological, and molecular features.

Results

Complete clinical and molecular data were evaluable from 452 women. Patient age ranged from 29 to 93 (median 65) years, and 87.8% cases were endometrioid histotype. Grade distribution included 282 (62.4%) G1, 75 (16.6%) G2, and 95 (21.0%) G3 tumors. 276 (61.1%) patients had stage IA disease, with the remaining stage IB [89 (19.7%)], stage II [26 (5.8%)], and stage III/IV [61 (13.5%)]. ProMisE molecular classification yielded 127 (28.1%) MMR-D, 42 (9.3%) POLE, 55 (12.2%) p53abn, and 228 (50.4%) p53wt. ProMisE was a prognostic marker for progression-free (P = 0.001) and disease-specific (P = 0.03) survival even after adjusting for known risk factors. Concordance between diagnostic and surgical specimens was highly favorable; accuracy 0.91, κ 0.88.

Discussion

We have developed, confirmed, and now validated a pragmatic molecular classification tool (ProMisE) that provides consistent categorization of tumors and identifies four distinct prognostic molecular subtypes. ProMisE can be applied to diagnostic samples and thus could be used to inform surgical procedure(s) and/or need for adjuvant therapy. Based on the IOM guidelines this classifier is now ready for clinical evaluation through prospective clinical trials.

A tumor board report of an 83-year-old woman with stage IB grade 3 endometrioid endometrial adenocarcinoma

An 83-year-old woman presented with postmenopausal bleeding ultimately leading to surgery and a final diagnosis of stage IB grade 3 endometrioid endometrial adenocarcinoma. The tumor board reviewed current literature regarding the efficacy of sentinel lymph node dissection in appropriately allocating stage in high-grade endometrial cancer. The optimal role of adjuvant treatment in this setting is unclear. Current literature surrounding adjuvant radiation and chemotherapy, as well as current practices in molecular diagnostics for endometrial cancer were reviewed. The tumor board concluded that literature surrounding sentinel lymph node evaluation in high-grade endometrial cancers is robust enough to incorporate into clinical practice. Based on the best available evidence, a decision was made to treat with external beam radiotherapy and withhold chemotherapy.

L1CAM further stratifies endometrial carcinoma patients with no specific molecular risk profile

Background

The newly developed Proactive Molecular Risk Classifier for Endometrial Cancer (ProMisE) has consistently been shown to be prognostically significant in endometrial carcinomas (EC). Recently, we and others have demonstrated L1 cell-adhesion molecule (L1CAM) to be a significant indicator of high-risk disease in EC. In the current study, it was our aim to determine the prognostic significance of aberrant L1CAM expression in ProMisE subgroups in a large, single centre, population-based EC cohort.

Methods

ProMisE (POLE; MMR-D; p53 wt/NSMP; p53 abn) classification results from a cohort of 452 EC were available for analysis. L1CAM expression was studied by immunohistochemistry on whole slides. Correlations between clinicopathological data and survival were calculated.

Results

Expression of L1CAM was most frequent in p53 abnormal tumours (80%). L1CAM status was predictive of worse outcome among tumours with no specific molecular profile (p53 wt/NSMP) (p < 0.0001). Among p53 wt/NSMP EC, L1CAM remained a significant prognosticator for disease-specific survival after multivariate analysis (p = 0.035).

Conclusion

L1CAM status was able to significantly stratify risk among tumours of the large p53 wt/NSMP ProMisE subgroup of EC. Furthermore, our study confirms a highly significant correlation between mutation-type p53 immunostaining and abnormal L1CAM expression in EC.

Non-endometrioid and high-grade endometrioid endometrial cancers show DNA fragmentation factor 40 (DFF40) and B-cell lymphoma 2 protein (BCL2) underexpression, which predicts disease-free and overall survival, but not DNA fragmentation factor 45 (DFF45) underexpression

Background

The expression of DNA fragmentation factor 45 (DFF45) and B-cell lymphoma 2 (BCL2) in glands of the normal human endometrium is related to phases of the menstrual cycle and decreases after menopause, whereas the expression of DNA fragmentation factor 40 (DFF40) is stable. Moreover, DF45, BCL2 and DFF40 underexpression has been reported in numerous malignancies, including uterine leiomyosarcomas. In this study, we aimed to investigate DFF45, BCL2 and DFF40 expression in endometrioid and non-endometrioid types of endometrial cancers (ECs). We also evaluated the correlations between DFF45, BCL2 and DFF40 expression levels and clinicopathological parameters and determined the value of these three proteins as prognostic markers of disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS).

Methods

Immunohistochemistry was performed to evaluate DFF45, BCL2 and DFF40 expression in 342 cases of ECs. Student’s t-test, the Mann-Whitney U-test, and the chi-squared test were used for the statistical analyses as appropriate. The Cox-Mantel test, Cox’s proportional hazard model, and relative risk analyses were used to evaluate associations between DFF40, DFF45, and BCL2 expression and clinicopathological characteristics.

Results

DFF40 and BCL2, but not DFF45, were significantly underexpressed in non-endometrioid and high-grade endometrioid ECs compared with low- and moderate-grade endometrioid ECs. Women with DFF40- and BCL2-negative tumors had higher risks of disease recurrence, lymph node involvement, lympho-vascular space infiltration, and deep myometrial invasion compared with women with DFF40- and BCL2-positive tumors. Additionally, women with DFF40- and BCL2-negative tumors had significantly lower OS and DFS than women with DFF40- and BCL2-positive tumors. A multivariable analysis of the model, including the clinicopathological characteristics and immunohistochemical results, showed that negative BCL2 expression, lymph node involvement, and high-stage and high-grade disease were independent predictors of OS, whereas negative BCL2 expression, lymph node involvement, and high-stage disease were independent predictors of DFS.

Conclusions

Compared with low- and moderate-grade endometrioid ECs, non-endometrioid and high-grade endometrioid ECs showed significant DFF40 and BCL2 underexpression. The absence of DFF40 and BCL2 expression negatively affects DFS and OS. Further prospective studies are warranted to assess the potential utility of DFF40 and BCL2 as targets in the diagnosis or treatment of ECs.

Disseminated tumor cells are not associated with established risk factors, L1CAM immunoreactivity and outcome in endometrial carcinoma

PURPOSE

The presence of disseminated tumor cells (DTC) in the bone marrow of endometrial carcinoma patients has been demonstrated previously. In contrast to breast cancer, no prognostic significance or association with clinicopathological features was revealed for endometrial carcinoma so far. The aim of this study was to investigate DTC in a large patient cohort with in-depth pathology review data available and to study DTC occurrence in the context of L1CAM and long-term disease specific follow-up.

METHODS

Patients treated for endometrial carcinoma at the Tuebingen University Women's hospital between 2003 and 2013 were identified. Cases with previous expert central pathology review including L1CAM immunohistochemistry and bone marrow aspirates available were selected. The presence of DTC and L1CAM expression was studied immunohistochemically.

RESULTS

In 395 cases with a confirmed diagnosis of endometrial carcinoma, bone marrow aspirates were available. DTC were detected in 17.2%. The presence of DTC was independent from tumor histology, grade, lymphovascular space involvement (LVSI), FIGO stage, myoinvasion, L1CAM immunoreactivity, and nodal metastasis. DTC occurred less frequently in cases with a microcystic elongated and fragmented (MELF) pattern of invasion (2.2 vs. 21.8%, p = 0.0003). Disease progression was distributed equally among patients with and without DTC present.

CONCLUSIONS

We were able to confirm previous findings of DTC presence in a large well-characterized cohort of endometrial carcinoma patients. DTC are detectable in almost one-fifth of endometrial carcinoma and occur less frequently with a MELF pattern of invasion. Further studies investigating the role of DTC in endometrial carcinoma are warranted.