Paired boxed gene 1 expression: A single potential biomarker for differentiating endometrial lesions associated with favorable outcomes in patients with endometrial carcinoma

Loss of ten-eleven translocation 1 (TET1) expression as a diagnostic and prognostic biomarker of endometrial carcinoma

Endometrial carcinoma (EC) is the most common gynecological cancer. However, there is currently no routinely used biomarker for differential diagnosis of malignant and premalignant endometrial lesions. Ten-eleven translocation (TET) proteins, especially TET1, were found to play a significant role in DNA demethylation, via conversion of 5-methylcytosine (5-mC) to 5-hydroxymethylcytosine (5-hmC). TET1, 5-mC, and 5-hmC expression profiles in endometrial carcinogenesis are currently unclear. We conducted a hospital-based retrospective review of the immunohistochemical expression of TET1, 5-mC, and 5-hmC in 181 endometrial samples. A “high” TET1 and 5-hmC expression score was observed in all cases of normal endometrium (100.0% and 100.0%, respectively) and in most samples of endometrial hyperplasia without atypia (90.9% and 78.8%, respectively) and atypical hyperplasia (90.6% and 93.8%, respectively), but a “high” score was found in only less than half of the EC samples (48.8% and 46.5%, respectively). The TET1 and 5-hmC expression scores were significantly higher in normal endometrium and premalignant endometrial lesions than in ECs (p < 0.001). A “high” 5-mC expression score was observed more frequently for ECs (81.4%) than for normal endometrium (40.0%), endometrial hyperplasia without atypia (51.5%), and atypical hyperplasia (53.1%) (p < 0.001). We also found that TET1 mRNA expression was lower in ECs compared to normal tissues (p = 0.0037). TET1 immunohistochemistry (IHC) scores were highly proportional to the TET1 mRNA levels and we summarize that the TET1 IHC scoring can be used for biomarker determinations. Most importantly, a higher TET1 score in EC cases was associated with a good overall survival (OS) rate, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.31 for death (95% confidence interval: 0.11–0.84). Our findings suggest that TET1, 5-mC, and 5-hmC expression is a potential histopathology biomarker for the differential diagnosis of malignant and premalignant endometrial lesions. TET1 is also a potential prognostic marker for EC.

The promising role of PAX1 (aliases: HUP48, OFC2) gene methylation in cancer screening

Background

Paired‐box gene 1 (PAX1), a member of the PAX family, plays a role in pattern formation during embryogenesis, and might be essential for development of the vertebral column.

Methods

PAX1 is silenced by methylation in several cancers and is considered a tumor suppressor gene. Our previous studies reported PAX1 as hypermethylated in cervical cancer tissues, thereby suggesting it as a potential screening marker. Recently, an increasing number of studies have confirmed PAX1 methylation as a promising biomarker in cervical cancer based on its excellent discriminatory ability between high‐grade cervical lesions and normal tissues, resulting in a reduced necessity for referral for colposcopy and biopsy. Additionally, PAX1 is also hypermethylated in other tumors, including those associated with epithelial ovarian cancer, esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, and endometrial carcinoma, and shows relatively good sensitivity and specificity for the detection of these tumors.

Results

This review summarizes reports of PAX1 methylation and its promising role in cancer screening, especially that associated with cervical cancer.

Conclusion

According to current evidence, combined testing for human papillomavirus and PAX1 methylation analysis represents an efficacious cervical cancer‐screening protocol.

Clinicopathological significance of PSF3 expression in uterine endometrial carcinomas

PSF3 (Partner of SLD Five 3) is a member of the heterotetrameric complex termed GINS. Previous studies have shown that PSF3 is up-regulated in several cancers and is associated with tumor malignancy. However, the clinicopathological significance of PSF3 expression in endometrial lesions is still poorly understood. To investigate whether PSF3 could serve as a useful biomarker for endometrial carcinomas, we performed immunohistochemical analysis of PSF3 expression. In 155 cases of endometrial carcinomas (ECs), the mean tumor proportion score of PSF3 expression was 30.7% in G1 endometrioid carcinoma, 55.0% in G2 endometrioid carcinoma, 59.0% in G3 endometrioid carcinoma, and 58.9% in nonendometrioid carcinomas. In 25 cases of atypical hyperplasia, the mean tumor proportion score of PSF3 expression was significantly lower (10.4%). High expression of PSF3 was associated with more advanced pathologic T stage (P = .000), lymphatic invasion (P = .001), and poor clinical outcomes such as shorter relapse-free survival (P = .000) and overall survival (P = .001). When we compared the immunostaining of PSF3 and Ki-67, the proportions of PSF3-positive cells in tumor epithelial cells were comparable to those of Ki-67-positive cells. However, PSF3-positive cells were selectively found in tumor cells, whereas Ki-67-positive cells were also found in tumor stromal cells. These results demonstrated that PSF3 immunostaining was valuable as a histopathologic marker for differential diagnosis between atypical hyperplasia and ECs, for tumor histologic grading, and for determining a patient's prognosis. PSF3 may play a crucial role in tumor progression in EC.