Reply to J. Moline et al

Endometrium karsinomlarında immünohistokimyasal olarak yanlış-eşleşme onarım (MMR) protein ekspresyonunun prognostik parametreler ile ilişkisinin araştırılması

Amaç: Endometrium karsinomlarında son yıllardaki en önemli gelişme moleküler sınıflama olmuştur. Bu sınıflamada tümörler dört gruba ayrılmıştır: 1-POLE mutant grup, 2-Mikrosatellit instabil (MSİ) grup, 3-Yüksek kopya sayısı grubu (P53 mutasyonu), 4-Düşük kopya sayısı grubu. Bu gruplardan POLE ve MSİ grup daha iyi prognoza sahip olması ve immün-kontrol inhibitör tedavisinden fayda görebilme potansiyelleri ile öne çıkmaktadır. Çalışmamızda immünohistokimyasal (İHK) yöntemle MMR proteinlerinde (MLH-1, PMS-2, MSH-2, MSH-6) nükleer ekspresyon kaybı olan ve olmayan olguların prognostik paramaterelerinin karşılaştırılması amaçlanmıştır. Gereç ve Yöntem: Bölümümüzde 2017-2020 yılları arasında histerektomi materyalinde endometrium karsinomu tanısı almış ve İHK olarak MMR proteinlerinin değerlendirildiği 80 hasta çalışmaya alınmıştır. MMR kaybı olan ve olmayan olgular tümör boyutu, histolojik derece (HD), myometrial invazyon derinliği, lenfovasküler invazyon (LVİ) ve servikal tutulum açısından karşılaştırılmıştır. Bulgular: Olguların 37’sinde (%46,3) MMR proteinlerinin herhangi birinde kayıp mevcutken, 43’ünde (%53,7) kayıp izlenmemiştir. MMR protein nükleer ekspresyon kaybı açısından olgular karşılaştırıldığında, kayıp saptanan olguların %45,9'da (17/37), kayıp saptanmayan olguların ise %27,9'da (12/43) histolojik derece III'tü (p:0,03). Myometrium 1/2 dış invazyon, servikal stromal tutulum ve LVİ açısından iki grup arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir fark saptanmamıştır. Sonuç: Çalışmamızdaki olguların yaklaşık yarısında MMR proteinlerinin en az birinde kayıp saptanmıştır. En sık kayıp MLH-1 ve PMS-2 kaybı olarak ortaya çıkmıştır. MMR proteinlerinde nükleer ekspresyon kaybı izlenen olguların HD’si kayıp saptanmayan olgulara göre istatistiksel olarak anlamlı şekilde daha yüksek olma eğilimindedir.

Fertility-sparing treatment in early endometrial cancer: current state and future strategies

Endometrial cancer (EC) is the fifth most common cancer in women worldwide. Global estimates show rising incidence rates in both developed and developing countries. Most women are diagnosed postmenopausal, but 14–25% of patients are premenopausal and 5% are under 40 years of age. Established risk factors include age and hyperestrogenic status associated with nulliparity, obesity, and metabolic syndrome. Standard treatment for EC, which involves total hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, has excellent survival outcomes, particularly for low-grade endometrioid tumors. However, it leads to permanent loss of fertility among women who wish to preserve their reproductive potential. With current trends of reproductive-age women delaying childbearing, rising EC incidence rates, and a growing epidemic of obesity, particularly in developed countries, research on conservative non-surgical treatment approaches remains a top priority. Fertility-sparing treatment predominantly involves the use of oral progestins and levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices, which have been shown to be feasible and safe in women with early stage EC and minimal or no myometrial invasion. However, data on the efficacy and safety of conservative management strategies are primarily based on retrospective studies. Randomized clinical trials in younger women and high-risk obese patients are currently underway. Here, we have presented a comprehensive review of the current literature on conservative, fertility-sparing approaches, defining the optimal candidates and evaluating tumor characteristics, reproductive and oncologic outcomes, and ongoing clinical trials. We have also summarized current guidelines and recommendations based on the published literature.

Endometrial cancer risk and survival by tumor MMR status

Objective

The risk of developing endometrial cancer (EC) and/or survival following a diagnosis of EC might differ by tumor DNA mismatch repair (MMR) status. We assessed the association between tumor MMR status (classified as MMR-proficient, somatic MMR-deficient, germline MMR-deficient) and the risk of developing EC and survival following a diagnosis of EC.

Methods

We analyzed data from women who participated in the Australian National Endometrial Cancer Study (ANECS) conducted between 2005 and 2007. Risk analyses (698 cases/691 population controls) utilized sociodemographic and lifestyle information obtained from telephone interviews at recruitment. For survival analyses (728 cases), patients' clinical data was abstracted from medical records, and survival data were obtained via linkage with the Australian National Death Index. We used logistic regression analysis to evaluate the associations between tumor MMR status and EC risk, and proportional hazards models to perform survival analyses with adjustment of known prognostic factors.

Results

Established risk factors for EC did not differ significantly by tumor MMR status. In analyses including all EC subtypes, overall and EC-specific survival did not differ by tumor MMR status. Among women with the most common endometrioid subtype, EC-specific survival was worse for women with somatic MMR-deficient EC compared to women with MMR-proficient EC (hazard ratio [HR]=2.18; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.19–4.01).

Conclusion

The risk of EC is not associated with MMR status. Accurate separation of germline from somatic causes of MMR deficiency suggests that patients with endometrioid subtype somatic MMR-deficient tumors have poorer EC-specific survival than those with MMR-proficient tumors, after accounting for other prognostic factors.

Endometrial cancer gene panels: clinical diagnostic vs research germline DNA testing

Endometrial cancer is the most common gynecological cancer, but is nevertheless uncommon enough to have value as a signature cancer for some hereditary cancer syndromes. Commercial multigene testing panels include up to 13 different genes annotated for germline DNA testing of patients with endometrial cancer. Many other genes have been reported as relevant to familial endometrial cancer from directed genome-wide sequencing studies or multigene panel testing, or research. This review assesses the evidence supporting association with endometrial cancer risk for 32 genes implicated in hereditary endometrial cancer, and presents a summary of rare germline variants in these 32 genes detected by analysis of quasi-population-based endometrial cancer patients from The Cancer Genome Atlas project. This comprehensive investigation has led to the conclusion that convincing evidence currently exists to support clinical testing of only six of these genes for diagnosis of hereditary endometrial cancer. Testing of endometrial cancer patients for the remaining genes should be considered in the context of research studies, as a means to better establish the level of endometrial cancer risk, if any, associated with genetic variants that are deleterious to gene or protein function. It is acknowledged that clinical testing of endometrial cancer patients for several genes included on commercial panels may provide actionable findings in relation to risk of other cancers, but these should be considered secondary or incidental findings and not conclusive evidence for diagnosis of inherited endometrial cancer. In summary, this review and analysis provides a comprehensive report of current evidence to guide the selection of genes for clinical and research gene testing of germline DNA from endometrial cancer patients.