Specific Biomarker Expression Patterns in the Diagnosis of Residual and Recurrent Endometrial Precancers After Progestin Treatment: A Longitudinal Study

Correlation between steroid receptor expression and response to progestational therapy in patients with atypical endometrial hyperplasia or cancer

Background

Conservative management of atypical endometrial hyperplasia (AEH) or endometrial cancer (EMCA) often relies on the treatment of synthetic progestins, which show varied success and response rates. We evaluate the correlation between steroid receptor expression and response to progestin therapy in patients with AEH and EMCA.

Methods

Retrospective cohort study collected data for patients with AEH or EMCA who had an endometrial sample after receiving conservative therapy utilizing either Megestrol acetate or Levonorgestrel Intrauterine device (IUD). Immunohistochemistry (IHC) was performed on pre- and post- treatment biopsy samples to assess androgen receptor (AR), estrogen receptor (ER), and progesterone receptor (PR) expression. IHC scores (1-12) were calculated based on staining intensity and percentage of positive cells.

Results and analysis

We identified 15 patients with AEH and EMCA between 2015 and 2023 with the majority of African American ethnicity (53 %). Fourteen patients (93 %) received Megestrol acetate, and 1 patient received Levonorgestrel IUD alone. Three patients ultimately underwent hysterectomy. Seven (46.6 %) endometrial samples had strong positivity for AR, PR and ER expression on pre-treatment biopsies, and only 3 (20 %) of them maintained strong positivity for the 3 receptors in the post-treatment. Patients who successfully responded to the treatment demonstrated a significantly greater decrease in IHC scores after the treatment compared to those who did not respond (p = 0.009).

Conclusion

Steroid receptor expression could be used as a possible biomarker for response to progestin therapy in patients undergoing conservative management for AEH and EMCA.

Lesions sub-diagnostic of endometrioid intra-epithelial neoplasia/atypical hyperplasia: value of morphology and immunohistochemistry in predicting neoplastic outcome

AIMS

Areas of gland crowding that do not fulfil diagnostic criteria of endometrioid intra-epithelial neoplasia (EIN) are often encountered in endometrial biopsies. In this study, we document the prevalence of neoplastic outcome in patients with these subdiagnostic lesions (SL) and assess the utility of morphological features and a three-marker immunohistochemistry panel (PAX2, PTEN, beta-catenin) to predict outcome.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Of 430 women with SL on endometrial sampling at Brigham and Women's Hospital between 2001 and 2021 with available follow-up biopsy, 72 (17%) had a neoplastic outcome (EIN or endometrioid carcinoma). Multilayered epithelium and mitoses in SL were statistically associated with a neoplastic outcome. Abnormal three-marker staining was observed in 93% (53 of 57) of SL with neoplastic outcome and 60% (37 of 62) of a control group with benign outcome. Among the 72 patients with neoplastic outcome, EIN/carcinoma tissue was available in 33; of these, 30 (91%) showed abnormal staining for one or more markers. Remarkably, in 84% of these cases the EIN/carcinoma had the aberrant expression seen in the preceding SL. Based on a prevalence of 17%, the positive and negative predictive values of abnormal staining in one or more markers were 24 and 97%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The presence of SL warrants clinical surveillance and repeat sampling because it is followed by endometrioid neoplasia in a significant subset of patients. Normal three-marker staining identifies women with a very low risk of neoplastic outcome. Conversely, abnormal staining is frequent in SL with benign outcome leading to poor specificity and positive predictive value.

PAX2 is regulated by estrogen/progesterone through promoter methylation in endometrioid adenocarcinoma and has an important role in carcinogenesis via the AKT/mTOR signaling pathway

Endometrioid adenocarcinoma (EEC) is one of the most common cancers of the female reproductive system. In recent years, much emphasis has been placed on early diagnosis and treatment. PAX2 (Paired box 2) inactivation is reportedly an important biomarker for endometrioid intraepithelial neoplasia (EIN) and EEC. However, the role of PAX2 in EEC carcinogenesis remains unclear. PAX2 expression and associated clinical characteristics were analyzed via The Cancer Genome Atlas, Gene Expression Omnibus, and Cancer Cell Line Encyclopedia databases and clinical paired EIN/EEC tissue samples. Bioinformatic analysis was conducted to identify the putative molecular function and mechanism of PAX2. Cell proliferation, colony formation, cell migration, and invasion assays in vitro, and mouse xenograft models were utilized to study the biological functions of PAX2 in vivo. Pyrosequencing and the demethylating drug 5-Aza-dc were used to verify promoter methylation in clinical tissues and cell lines, respectively. The mechanism underlying the regulatory effect of estrogen (E2) and progesterone (P4) on PAX2 expression was investigated by receptor block assay and double luciferase reporter assay. PAX2 expression was found to be significantly downregulated in EIN and EEC tissues, its overexpression inhibited EEC cell malignant behaviors in vivo and in vitro and inhibited the AKT/mTOR signaling pathway. PAX2 inactivation in EEC was related to promoter methylation, and its expression was regulated by E2 and P4 through their receptors via promoter methylation. Our findings elucidated the expression and function of PAX2 in EEC and have provided hitherto undocumented evidence of the underlying molecular mechanisms. PAX2 expression is suppressed by estrogen prompting its methylation through estrogen receptor. Furthermore, PAX2 regulates the AKT/mTOR signaling pathway to influence EEC progression. © 2024 The Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland.

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.

Utility of a PAX2, PTEN, and β-catenin Panel in the Diagnosis of Atypical Hyperplasia/Endometrioid Intraepithelial Neoplasia in Endometrial Polyps

The diagnosis of atypical hyperplasia/endometrioid intraepithelial neoplasm (AH/EIN) within endometrial polyps (EMPs) often poses a diagnostic conundrum. Our previous studies demonstrated that a panel of immunohistochemical (IHC) markers consisting of PAX2, PTEN, and β-catenin can be effectively utilized for the identification of AH/EIN. A total of 105 AH/EIN within EMP were analyzed using the 3-marker panel. We also evaluated these cases for the presence of morules. Benign EMP (n=90) and AH/EIN unassociated with polyp (n=111) served as controls. Aberrant expression of PAX2, PTEN, or β-catenin was observed in AH/EIN in EMP in 64.8%, 39.0%, and 61.9% of cases, respectively. At least 1 IHC marker was abnormal in 92.4% of cases. Overall, 60% of AH/EIN in EMP demonstrated abnormal results for≥2 IHC markers. The prevalence of PAX2 aberrancy was significantly lower in AH/EIN in EMP than in nonpolyp AH/EIN (64.8% vs. 81.1%, P =0.007), but higher than in benign EMP (64.8% vs. 14.4%, P <0.00001). The prevalence of β-catenin aberrancy was significantly higher in AH/EIN in EMP than in nonpolyp AH/EIN (61.9% vs. 47.7%, P =0.037). All control benign EMP demonstrated normal expression of PTEN and β-catenin. Morules were present in 38.1% of AH/EIN in EMP versus 24.3% in nonpolyp AH/EIN, and absent in benign EMP. A strong positive association was found between β-catenin and morules (Φ=0.64). Overall, 90% cases of atypical polypoid adenomyoma (n=6) and mucinous papillary proliferation (n=4) showed IHC marker aberrancy. In conclusion, the 3-marker IHC panel (PAX2, PTEN, and β-catenin) is (1) a useful tool in the diagnosis of AH/EIN in EMP; (2) PAX2 loss should be interpreted with caution and in combination with morphology and other markers.

β-catenin, Pax2, and Pten Panel Identifies Precancers Among Histologically Subdiagnostic Endometrial Lesions

Despite refinements in histologic criteria for the diagnosis of endometrioid precancers, many challenging cases are encountered in daily practice, creating diagnostic uncertainty and suboptimal patient management. Recently, an immunohistochemical 3-marker panel consisting of β-catenin, Pax2, and Pten was identified as a useful diagnostic adjunct. However, previous studies focused either on cancers or diagnostically unambiguous precancers, leaving questions about the applicability and utility of the panel in endometria with architectural features near or below the threshold of accepted histologic criteria for endometrioid precancers. Here, in a retrospective study of 90 patients, we evaluated the performance of the 3-marker panel. Notably, the panel detected a subset of disordered proliferative endometria (8/44, 18%), nonatypical hyperplasias (19/40, 48%), and cases with ambiguous features (3/6, 50%) with aberrancy for ≥1 markers. Marker-aberrant cases were more likely to progress to endometrioid precancer or cancer ( P =0.0002). Patterns of marker aberrancy in the index and progressor cases from individual patients provided evidence for origin in a common precursor, and next-generation sequencing of the progressor cases rationalized marker aberrancy for β-catenin and Pten. The results unequivocally demonstrate that some lesions that do not approach current histologic thresholds are bona fide neoplastic precursors with clinically-relevant driver events that can be detected by the 3-marker panel. The findings provide further validation for the diagnostic utility of the panel in clinical practice and its application in difficult or ambiguous cases.

Application of molecular classification to guiding fertility-sparing therapy for patients with endometrial cancer or endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate whether molecular classification was associated with treatment response in women with endometrial endometrioid carcinoma (EEC) or Endometrial atypical hyperplasia/endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia (EAH/EIN) treated with progestin.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of 59 patients with EEC or EAH/EIN who received fertility-sparing therapy between 2013 and 2021 was performed. For each patient, medical records and pathological reports were reviewed. The treatment efficacy and tumor prognosis were evaluated. Immunohistochemistry analysis for p53 and MSH2, MSH6, PSM2, MLH1 were performed. Molecular classification was analyzed using a 11-gene panel based on next generation sequencing technology.

RESULTS

23 of 39 patients with EEC received complete response (CR) after fertility-sparing treatment which was significantly lower than the EAH/EIN group (58.97 % vs 80.0 %, P < 0.05). Molecular classification via the Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) algorithm was successfully applied to 59 cases. The distribution of specimens into the four molecular classes was as follows: 83.05 % (49/59) CNL(copy number-low)，6.78 % (4/59) MSI-H (microsatellite instability -high), 5.08 %(3/59) POLE-mutated and 5.08 % (3/59) CNH(copy number-high). MSI and TP53 sequencing results were concordant with immunohistochemistry analyses of MMR and p53 protein. The patients with CNH and MSI-H subtypes showed worse prognosis than those with POLE-mutated and CNL subtypes.

CONCLUSIONS

Molecular classification of EAH/EIN prior to management with progestin treatment was feasible and may predict patients at risk of progression.

Use of clinicopathological factors to predict prognosis of fertility-sparing treatment for endometrial endometrioid carcinoma and atypical hyperplasia

The incidence of endometrial endometrioid carcinoma (EEC) has been gradually increasing over the past decade. Fertility-sparing therapy with progestin is a treatment option for EEC or endometrial atypical hyperplasia (AH). The present study evaluated the role of numerous prognostic factors following fertility-sparing therapy for EEC or AH. Furthermore, the present study assessed the strength of various clinicopathological indicators for the prediction of treatment efficacy. A retrospective analysis was performed of patients with EEC and AH who received fertility-sparing therapy between August 2013 and September 2021 at Peking University People's Hospital (Beijing, China). Endometrial specimens were obtained from each patient after 3 months of treatment and at the end of the fertility-sparing therapy, before treatment efficacy and prognosis were evaluated using the χ² test. Furthermore, the protein expression levels of EEC biomarkers, such as estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), paired box 2 (PAX2), PTEN and p53 were assessed using immunohistochemistry. The overall complete response (CR) rate of fertility-sparing treatment in the EEC group was 67.39% (31/46), whereas that in the AH group was 86.49% (32/37). The difference between the CR rates in the EEC and AH groups was statistically significant (P<0.05). There was no association between prognosis after treatment and ER, PAX2, PTEN or Ki-67 expression in the initially untreated AH or EEC groups. However, tissues with >50% positive PR expression were demonstrated to have a higher CR rate compared with those with ≤50% positive PR expression in both the EEC and AH groups. Furthermore, the PAX2-positive group tended to demonstrate higher CR rates compared with the PAX2-negative group in the patients with EEC. In conclusion, these data suggested that fertility-sparing therapy is effective for patients with EEC and AH who wish to remain fertile after treatment. Specifically, in the AH group, a higher proportion of patients achieved a CR whilst also achieving this more rapidly. Furthermore, PR was demonstrated to be a useful marker for the evaluation of EEC and AH.

Reliable Identification of Endometrial Precancers Through Combined Pax2, β-Catenin, and Pten Immunohistochemistry

The diagnosis of endometrial atypical hyperplasia/endometrioid intraepithelial neoplasia (AH/EIN) remains challenging and subjective in some cases, with variable histologic criteria and differences of opinion among gynecologic pathologists, potentially leading to under/overtreatment. There has been growing interest in the use of specific immunohistochemical markers as adjuncts in AH/EIN diagnosis. For example, the World Health Organization 2020 Classification specifies that loss of Pten, Pax2, or mismatch repair proteins are desirable diagnostic criteria. Other markers, most notably β-catenin and Arid1a, are also aberrantly expressed in some AH/EIN. However, the performance of some markers individually-and more importantly as a group-has not been rigorously explored, raising questions as to which marker(s) or combination(s) is the most effective in practice. Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue sections from AH/EIN cases (n=111) were analyzed by immunohistochemistry for 6 markers: Pax2, Pten, Mlh1, β-catenin, Arid1a, and p53. Aberrant expression was tabulated for each case and marker. An additional set of normal endometria (n=79) was also analyzed to define optimal diagnostic criteria for marker aberrance. The performance characteristics of each marker, the entire panel, and subsets thereof were quantitatively and statistically analyzed. In order of number of cases detected, the most frequently aberrant markers in AH/EIN were Pax2 (81.1% of cases), Pten (50.5%), β-catenin (47.7%), Arid1a (7.2%), Mlh1 (4.5%), and p53 (2.7%). The majority of cases showed aberrant expression of ≥2 markers. All 6 markers together identified 92.8% of cases. Arid1a, Mlh1, and p53 were robust and readily scored markers, but all cases showing aberrant expression of these 3 markers were also detected by Pax2, Pten, or β-catenin. A focused panel of only 3 markers (Pax2, Pten, and β-catenin) showed optimal performance characteristics as a diagnostic adjunct in the histopathologic diagnosis of AH/EIN. Use of this panel is practicable and robust, with at least 1 of the 3 markers being aberrant in 92.8% of AH/EIN.

Endometrial polyps are non-neoplastic but harbor epithelial mutations in endometrial cancer drivers at low allelic frequencies

Endometrial polyps (EMPs) are common exophytic masses associated with abnormal uterine bleeding and infertility. Unlike normal endometrium, which is cyclically shed, EMPs persist over ovulatory cycles and after the menopause. Despite their usual classification as benign entities, EMPs are paradoxically associated with endometrial carcinomas of diverse histologic subtypes, which frequently arise within EMPs. The etiology and potential origins of EMPs as clonally-derived neoplasms are uncertain, but previous investigations suggested that EMPs are neoplasms of stromal origin driven by recurring chromosomal rearrangements. To better define benign EMPs at the molecular genetic level, we analyzed individual EMPs from 31 women who underwent hysterectomy for benign indications. The 31 EMPs were subjected to comprehensive genomic profiling by exome sequencing of a large panel of tumor-related genes including oncogenes, tumor suppressors, and chromosomal translocation partners. There were no recurring chromosomal rearrangements, and copy-number analyses did not reveal evidence of significant chromosome-level events. Surprisingly, there was a high incidence of single nucleotide variants corresponding to classic oncogenic drivers (i.e., definitive cancer drivers). The spectrum of known oncogenic driver events matched that of endometrial cancers more closely than any other common cancer. Further analyses including laser-capture microdissection showed that these mutations were present in the epithelial compartment at low allelic frequencies. These results establish a link between EMPs and the acquisition of endometrial cancer driver mutations. Based on these findings, we propose a model where the association between EMPs and endometrial cancer is explained by the age-related accumulation of endometrial cancer drivers in a protected environment that-unlike normal endometrium-is not subject to cyclical shedding.

Histopathologic diagnosis of endometrial precancers: Updates and future directions

Early detection of endometrial cancer, especially its precancers, remains a critical and evolving issue in patient management and the quest to decrease mortality due to endometrial cancer. Due to many factors such as specimen fragmentation, the confounding influence of endogenous or exogenous hormones, and variable or overlapping histologic features, identification of bona fide endometrial precancers and their reliable discrimination from benign mimics remains one of the most challenging areas in diagnostic pathology. At the same time, the diagnosis of endometrial precancer, or the presence of suspicious but subdiagnostic features in an endometrial biopsy, can lead to long clinical follow-up with multiple patient visits and serial endometrial sampling, emphasizing the need for accurate diagnosis. Our understanding of endometrial precancers and their diagnosis has improved due to systematic investigations into morphologic criteria, the molecular genetics of endometrial cancer and their precursors, the validation of novel biomarkers and their use in panels, and more recent methods such digital image analysis. Although precancers for both endometrioid and non-endometrioid carcinomas will be reviewed, emphasis will be placed on the former. We review these advances and their relevance to the histopathologic diagnosis of endometrial precancers, and the recently updated 2020 World Health Organization (WHO) Classification of Female Genital Tumors.

Navigating through perplex morphologic changes after exogenous hormone usage

Clinical application of exogenous hormone as a method of contraception and/or treatment of various gynecologic disorders is exceedingly common. Unfortunately, the concurrent use of these agents also complicates the interpretation of pathology specimens. Various studies have shown that morphologic changes induced by hormonal therapies are present in both non-neoplastic and neoplastic tissues within the women's reproductive tract. It is important to understand the exogenous hormone induced morphologic changes, as it helps the pathologists make the accurate diagnosis, and in turn, guide clinicians to make optimal clinical decisions. In this review, we summarize the morphologic changes in both neoplastic and non-neoplastic endometrial, cervical, and myometrial surgical specimens after hormonal therapies, particularly after progestin treatment. In the endometrium, particularly in the scenario of progestin-treated atypical endometrial hyperplasia/endometrioid intraepithelial neoplasia (AEH/EIN), there is notoriously poor interobserver agreement and difficulty in assessing for the residual disease. We summarize current literature and propose our recommended approach in assessing these challenging endometrial biopsies, including a diagnostic algorism, the use of PAX-2, PTEN, beta-catenin immunohistochemistry panel, as well as consistency in diagnostic wording of the report. In the cervix, progestin makes dysplastic lesions appear metaplastic, thus high-grade squamous dysplastic lesions may be easily missed. Within the myometrium, lesions such as adenomyosis may show various degree of decidualization, while smooth muscle neoplasms may show apoplectic changes, and stromal lesions including endometrial stromal sarcoma may show more eosinophilic cytoplasm. All such changes may pose more or less diagnostic challenges in our daily practice. However, most are readily recognizable when we understand particular hormone related scenarios.