A single-institution retrospective exploratory analysis on the effectiveness and safety of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab for advanced endometrial cancer: insights from ProMisE molecular classification system

BACKGROUND

The Proactive Molecular Risk Classifier for Endometrial Cancer has identified four risk groups for the prognosis of endometrial cancer. Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab was recently approved as a second-line treatment for unresectable endometrial cancer, but reports in clinical practice are lacking. The relationship between the efficacy of lenvatinib/pembrolizumab and Proactive Molecular Risk Classifier for Endometrial Cancer classification is unclear.

METHODS

This single-centre retrospective study included patients who underwent lenvatinib/pembrolizumab therapy at Iwate Medical University Hospital between January 2022 and March 2023. Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded specimens obtained from patients before treatment were collected and classified into the mismatch repair-deficient, p53 abnormal and no specific molecular profile subtypes using immunohistochemistry. The response rate, progression-free survival and adverse events were evaluated using electronic medical records. The study was approved by the hospital's ethics committee (approval number: MH2022-093).

RESULTS

This study enrolled 20 patients, who underwent a median follow-up of 17.8 months (95% confidence interval: 16.6-18.9). The best overall response rate was 60.0% (36.1-80.9), and the median progression-free survival was 11.6 months (2.9-20.3). The median progression-free survival in the p53 abnormal group (n = 9) was 3.4 months (3.0-3.8); however, progression-free survival did not reach the median (P < 0.001) in the mismatch repair-deficient/no specific molecular profile group (n = 11). Symptomatic immune-related adverse events (except hypothyroidism) occurred in 4/20 (25.0%) patients, and partial responses were observed in all cases. No treatment-related deaths occurred.

CONCLUSION

The p53abn group in the Proactive Molecular Risk Classifier for Endometrial Cancer classification has a poor prognosis even after treatment with lenvatinib/pembrolizumab.

Harmonized molecular classification; assessment of a single-test ProMisE NGS tool

OBJECTIVES

Despite recommendations for integrating molecular classification of endometrial cancers (EC) into pathology reporting and clinical management, uptake is inconsistent. To assign ProMisE subtype, all molecular components must be available (POLE mutation status, mismatch repair (MMR) and p53 immunohistochemistry (IHC)) and often these are assessed at different stages of care and/or at different centres resulting in delays in treatment. We assessed a single-test DNA-based targeted next generation sequencing (NGS) molecular classifier (ProMisE NGS), comparing concordance and prognostic value to the original ProMisE classifier.

METHODS

DNA was extracted from formalin-fixed paraffin embedded (FFPE) ECs that had previously undergone ProMisE molecular classification (POLE sequencing, IHC for p53 and MMR). DNA was sequenced using the clinically validated Imagia Canexia Health Find It™ amplicon-based NGS gene panel assay to assess for pathogenic POLE mutations (unchanged from original ProMisE), TP53 mutations (in lieu of p53 IHC), and microsatellite instability (MSI) (in lieu of MMR IHC),with the same order of segregation as original ProMisE used for subtype assignment. Molecular subtype assignment of both classifiers was compared by concordance metrics and Kaplan-Meier survival statistics.

RESULTS

The new DNA-based NGS molecular classifier (ProMisE NGS) was used to determine the molecular subtype in 164 ECs previously classified with ProMisE. 159/164 cases were concordant with a kappa statistic of 0.96 and an overall accuracy of 0.97. Prognostic differences in progression-free, disease-specific and overall survival between the four molecular subtypes were observed for the new NGS classifier, recapitulating the survival curves of the original ProMisE classifier. ProMisE NGS was 100% concordant between matched biopsy and hysterectomy samples.

CONCLUSION

ProMisE NGS is feasible on standard FFPE material, demonstrates high concordance with the original ProMisE classifier and maintains prognostic value in EC. This test has the potential to facilitate implementation of molecular classification of EC at the time of first diagnosis.

Classification Systems of Endometrial Cancer: A Comparative Study about Old and New

Endometrial cancer is the most common gynecological malignancy of the female reproductive organs. Historically it was divided into type I and type II, until 2013 when the Cancer Genome Atlas molecular classification was proposed. Here, we applied the different classification types on our endometrial cancer patient cohort in order to identify the most predictive one. We enrolled 117 endometrial cancer patients available for the study and collected the following parameters: age, body mass index, stage, menopause, Lynch syndrome status, parity, hypertension, type of localization of the lesion at hysteroscopy, type of surgery and complications, and presence of metachronous or synchronous tumors. The tumors were classified according to the European Society for Medical Oncology, Proactive Molecular Risk Classifier for Endometrial Cancer, Post-Operative Radiation Therapy in Endometrial Carcinoma, and Cancer Genome Atlas classification schemes. Our data confirmed that European Society for Medical Oncology risk was the strongest predictor of prognosis in our cohort. The parameters correlated with poor prognosis were the histotype, FIGO stage, and grade. Our study cohort shows that risk stratification should be based on the integration of histologic, clinical, and molecular parameters.

Risk Stratification of Endometrial Cancer Patients: FIGO Stage, Biomarkers and Molecular Classification

Endometrial cancer (EC) is the most common gynaecologic malignancy in developed countries. The main challenge in EC management is to correctly estimate the risk of metastases at diagnosis and the risk to develop recurrences in the future. Risk stratification determines the need for surgical staging and adjuvant treatment. Detection of occult, microscopic metastases upstages patients, provides important prognostic information and guides adjuvant treatment. The molecular classification subdivides EC into four prognostic subgroups: POLE ultramutated; mismatch repair deficient (MMRd); nonspecific molecular profile (NSMP); and TP53 mutated (p53abn). How surgical staging should be adjusted based on preoperative molecular profiling is currently unknown. Moreover, little is known whether and how other known prognostic biomarkers affect prognosis prediction independent of or in addition to these molecular subgroups. This review summarizes the factors incorporated in surgical staging (i.e., peritoneal washing, lymph node dissection, omentectomy and peritoneal biopsies), and its impact on prognosis and adjuvant treatment decisions in an era of molecular classification of EC. Moreover, the relation between FIGO stage and molecular classification is evaluated including the current gaps in knowledge and future perspectives.

Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and POLE mutation in endometrial carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Polymerase-ε (POLE)-mutated endometrial carcinomas (ECs) have displayed an increased number of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL) compared to POLE-wild-type ECs. However, it is unclear if TIL may aid in identifying POLE-mutated ECs when molecular data are unavailable. The identification of a POLE mutation surrogate may be crucial to translate TCGA/ProMisE risk assessment in the clinical practice.

AIM

To assess TIL as histological surrogate of POLE mutation in EC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Seven electronic databases were searched from their inception to September 2020 for studies that allowed data extraction about TIL and TCGA/ProMisE groups of EC. We calculated pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR+ and LR-), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) and area under the curve (AUC) on SROC curves of TIL in distinguishing POLE-mutated from i) POLE-wild-type, ii) no specific molecular profile (NSMP), iii) POLE-wild-type/MMR-proficient, iii) MMR-deficient ECs.

RESULTS

10 studies assessing 1169 women were included in the qualitative analysis. TIL-high pattern showed: sensitivity = 0.65, specificity = 0.63, LR + =2.06, LR- = 0.48, DOR = 4.39, AUC = 0.7532 for POLE-mutant vs POLE-wild-type ECs; sensitivity = 0.85, specificity = 0.73, LR + =2.80, LR- = 0.22, DOR = 15.17 for POLE-mutant vs NSMP ECs; sensitivity = 0.85, specificity = 0.66, LR + =2.49, LR- = 0.25, DOR = 10.30 for POLE-mutant vs POLE-wild-type/MMR-proficient ECs; sensitivity = 0.68, specificity = 0.44, LR + =1.38, LR- = 0.64, DOR = 2.68, AUC = 0.6694 for POLE-mutant vs MMR-deficient ECs.

CONCLUSION

TIL-high pattern shows a moderate accuracy in distinguishing POLE-mutated from POLE-wild-type ECs after the exclusion of MMR-deficient cases. TIL might be considered in an integrate algorithm to identify POLE-mutated ECs when sequencing is unavailable. Further studies are necessary in this regard.

Molecular subtype diagnosis of endometrial carcinoma: comparison of the next-generation sequencing panel and Proactive Molecular Risk Classifier for Endometrial Cancer classifier

The Cancer Genome Atlas-based molecular classification of endometrial carcinoma (EC) has the potential to better identify those patients whose disease is likely to behave differently than predicted when using traditional risk stratification; however, the optimal approach to molecular subtype assignment in routine practice remains undetermined. The aim of this study was to compare the results of two different widely available approaches to diagnosis the EC molecular subtype. EC specimens from 60 patients were molecularly subclassified using two different methods, by using the FoundationOne CDx next-generation sequencing (NGS) panel and using the Proactive Molecular Risk Classifier for Endometrial Cancer (ProMisE) classifier and performing immunostaining for mismatch repair proteins and p53. POLE mutation status was derived from FoundationOne results in both settings. Molecular classification based on ProMisE was successful for all 60 tumors. Microsatellite instability status could be determined based on the NGS panel results in 53 of 60 tumors, so ProMisE and NGS molecular subtype assignment could be directly compared for these 53 tumors. Molecular subtype diagnosis based on NGS and ProMisE was in agreement for 52 of 53 tumors. One tumor was microsatellite stable but showed loss of MLH1 and PMS2 expression. Molecular subtype diagnosis of EC based on the NGS panel of formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded ECs and based primarily on immunostaining (ProMisE) yields identical results in 98.1% (52/53, kappa = 0.97) of cases. Although results obtained using these two approaches are comparable, each has advantages and disadvantages that will influence the choice of the method to be used in clinical practice.

Diagnostic accuracy of p53 immunohistochemistry as surrogate of TP53 sequencing in endometrial cancer

Aberrant p53 immunohistochemical expression is used to identify the copy-number-high/TP53-mutant subgroup of endometrial cancer (EC). We aimed to determine the diagnostic accuracy of p53 immunohistochemistry as surrogate for TP53 sequencing through a systematic review and meta-analysis. Electronic databases were searched from their inception to June 2019. All studies assessing p53 expression and TP53 mutations in EC were included. Diagnostic accuracy was assessed based on area under the curve (AUC). Immunohistochemical criteria used to define aberrant p53 expression were "overexpression" and "overexpression or complete absence". Subgroup analysis was based on the sequencing technique adopted (Polymerase Chain Reaction + sequencing, or next generation sequencing, NGS). Thirteen observational studies with 727 endometrial cancers were included. Both "overexpression" and "overexpression or complete absence" showed high diagnostic accuracy (AUC = 0.9088 and 0.9030, respectively). The subgroup with "overexpression" and NGS showed the best results, with very high diagnostic accuracy (AUC = 0.9927). In conclusion, immunohistochemistry for p53 is a highly accurate surrogate of TP53 sequencing. Overexpression of p53 in ≥70-80% showed the best accuracy in predicting TP53 mutations. Further studies in this field should adopt optimized immunohistochemical procedures and take into account less common p53 patterns (e.g. cytoplasmic expression).

Diagnostic Accuracy of Immunohistochemistry for Mismatch Repair Proteins as Surrogate of Microsatellite Instability Molecular Testing in Endometrial Cancer

Microsatellite instability (MSI) defines one of the four molecular groups of endometrial carcinoma identified by The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA). Immunohistochemistry for mismatch repair (MMR) proteins (MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2) has been proposed as a widely applicable technique to identify this group in the common practice. However, the diagnostic accuracy of such approach has never been calculated. We aimed to assess: 1) the diagnostic accuracy of MMR proteins immunohistochemistry as surrogate of MSI molecular testing in endometrial carcinoma; 2) whether a combination of only two MMR proteins may be used as a still cheaper test. A systematic review and meta-analysis of was performed by searching electronic databases from their inception to September 2019. All studies assessing endometrial carcinoma with both MMR proteins immunohistochemistry and MSI molecular testing were included. Diagnostic accuracy was assessed as sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR+, LR-), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) and area under the curve (AUC) on SROC curves. A subgroup analysis was performed for a combination of only two MMR proteins (MLH1-MSH2 vs MSH6-PMS2). Ten studies with 3097 patients were included. Out of these, 1110 were suitable for the meta-analysis. Immunohistochemistry for all the four MMR proteins showed sensitivity = 0.96, specificity = 0.95, LR + =17.7, LR- = 0.05, DOR = 429.77, and high diagnostic accuracy (AUC = 0.988). The combination of MLH1 and MSH2 showed sensitivity = 0.88, specificity = 0.96, LR + =22.36, LR- = 0.15, DOR = 200.69, and high diagnostic accuracy (AUC = 0.9838). The combination of MSH6 and PMS2 showed the same results as the complete panel of four MMR proteins. In conclusion, MMR proteins immunohistochemistry is a highly accurate surrogate of MSI molecular testing in endometrial carcinoma. A combination of MSH6 and PMS2 may allow reducing the cost without decrease in the diagnostic accuracy.

Impact of endometrial carcinoma histotype on the prognostic value of the TCGA molecular subgroups

BACKGROUND

The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) identified four prognostic subgroups of endometrial carcinoma: copy-number-low/p53-wild-type (p53wt), POLE-mutated/ultramutated (POLEmt), microsatellite-instability/hypermutated (MSI), and copy-number-high/p53-mutated (p53mt). However, it is still unclear if they may be integrated with the current histopathological prognostic factors, such as histotype.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the impact of histotype on the prognostic value of the TCGA molecular subgroups of endometrial carcinoma.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed by searching 7 electronic databases from their inception to April 2019 for studies assessing prognosis in all TCGA subgroups of endometrial carcinoma. Pooled hazard ratio (HR) for overall survival (OS) was calculated in two different groups ("all-histotypes" and "endometrioid"), using p53wt subgroup as reference standard; HR for non-endometrioid histotypes was calculated indirectly. Disease-specific survival and progression-free survival were assessed as additional analyses.

RESULTS

Six studies with 2818 patients were included. In the p53mt subgroup, pooled HRs for OS were 4.322 (all-histotypes), 2.505 (endometrioid), and 4.937 (non-endometrioid). In the MSI subgroup, pooled HRs were 1.965 (all-histotypes), 1.287 (endometrioid), and 6.361 (non-endometrioid). In the POLEmt subgroup, pooled HRs were 0.763 (all-histotypes), 0.481 (endometrioid), and 2.634 (non-endometrioid). Results of additional analyses were consistent for all subgroups except for non-endometrioid POLEmt carcinomas.

CONCLUSION

Histotype of endometrial carcinoma shows a crucial prognostic value independently of the TCGA molecular subgroup, with non-endometrioid carcinomas having a worse prognosis in each TCGA subgroup. Histotype should be integrated with molecular characterization for the risk stratification of patients in the future.

TCGA molecular subgroups and FIGO grade in endometrial endometrioid carcinoma

BACKGROUND

International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) grade is a crucial factor in the current system for the risk stratification of endometrial endometrioid carcinoma (EC). The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) demonstrated four molecular prognostic subgroups for EC: POLE (good prognosis), microsatellite-instable (MSI, intermediate prognosis), copy-number-high (CNH, poor prognosis), and copy-number-low (CNL, variable prognosis).

OBJECTIVE

To assess how the prevalence of the TCGA molecular subgroups changes from low-grade (G1-2) to high-grade (G3) EC, to understand how it may affect the current risk-assessment system.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was carried out by searching seven electronic databases from January 2013 to September 2019 for studies assessing the TCGA classification G1-2 and G3 EC. Pooled prevalence of the TCGA subgroups was calculated in EC. The association of each subgroup with grade was assessed using odds ratio (OR), with a significant p value < 0.05.

RESULTS

Nine studies with 3185 patients were included. G3 EC showed significantly higher prevalence of the POLE subgroup (12.1% vs 6.2%; OR = 2.13; p = 0.0001), of the MSI subgroup (39.7% vs 24.7%; OR = 2.15; p = 0.0003) and of the CNH subgroup (21.3% vs 4.7%; OR = 5.25; p < 0.00001), and significantly lower prevalence of the CNL subgroup (28% vs 63.5%; OR = 0.2; p < 0.00001) than G1-2 EC.

CONCLUSION

The prevalence of the TCGA subgroups is not in accordance with the prognostic value of FIGO grade, indicating that the current risk stratification of EC will be heavily affected by molecular signature.

Analysis of 108 patients with endometrial carcinoma using the PROMISE classification and additional genetic analyses for MMR-D

OBJECTIVES

To apply the Proactive Molecular Risk Classifier for Endometrial Cancer (ProMisE) to a consecutive series of endometrial cancer (EC) patients diagnosed at a tertiary referral center and assign EC specimens to one of four molecular subgroups using immunohistochemistry (IHC) for p53/mismatch repair protein expression and sequencing for Polymerase Epsilon Exonuclease Domain Mutations (POLE-EDM). Mismatch Repair Deficient (MMR-D) cases were more thoroughly investigated to identify underlying somatic or germline genetic defects.

METHODS

Hundred-and eight consecutive endometrial cancer patients, diagnosed between March 2017 and April 2019, were subjected to immunohistochemical and molecular analysis, according to ProMisE. IHC for p53 and the mismatch repair proteins (MLH1, PMS2, MSH6 and PMS2) was performed. All patients were also tested for POLE-EDM by Sanger sequencing. In addition, tumor and corresponding normal tissue of cases with abnormal MMR IHC were tested by PCR for microsatellite instability (MSI) (MSI analysis system, Promega). Hypermethylation of MLH1 promotor was tested with (methylation specific) multiplex ligation dependent probe amplification. MMR-D cases were subjected to germline mutation analysis of the mismatch repair genes, using next generation sequencing on MiSeq (Illumina) with the BRCA Hereditary Cancer MASTR Plus, (Multiplicom/Agilent), RNA mutation analysis and MLPA.

RESULTS

FIGO classification was stage IA (n = 54), IB (n = 22) II(n = 8), III(n = 18) and IV(n = 6). Of the 33 patients with MMR-D on IHC (31%), 26 showed MLH1 promotor hypermethylation as the probable cause of MMR-D. The remaining 7 patients without MLH1 promotor hypermethylation were referred for germline analysis of Lynch syndrome. Six patients carried a pathogenic germline mutation in one of the mismatch repair genes: MSH6(n = 3), PMS2(n = 1), MLH1(n = 1) and MSH2 (n = 1). Pathogenic POLE-EDM were identified in 7 (6%) patients. Multiple molecular features (POLE-EDM + MMR-D or POLE-EDM + p53 abnormal) were observed in 4 patients (4%). A high concordance between MMR-D and microsatellite instability was observed in our cohort. In cases of a genetic defect in the MMR genes, we do note a large proportion of cases exhibiting microsatellite instability. On the contrary a hypermutation state, as seen in POLE EDM, does not result in accompanied phenotypic changes in MSI status.

CONCLUSION

The ProMisE classification proved to be an efficient and easily implementable system. Future research should elucidate the precise biological and prognostic meaning of the cases with multiple molecular markers.

Evaluation of endometrial carcinoma prognostic immunohistochemistry markers in the context of molecular classification

Molecular subclassification of endometrial carcinoma (EC) with Proactive Molecular Risk Classifier for Endometrial Cancer (ProMisE) identifies four subtypes [DNA polymerase epsilon (POLE) mutant, mismatch repair‐deficient, p53 wild‐type (wt), and p53 abnormal]. The aim of this study was to evaluate additional EC biomarkers in the context of these subtypes. Tissue microarrays encompassing 460 previously characterized ECs were assessed for L1‐cell adhesion molecule (L1CAM), progesterone receptor (PR), estrogen receptor (ER) alpha, stathmin, and phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN), by immunohistochemistry (IHC). Associations with clinicopathological parameters, molecular subtype, and outcomes were determined. About 413 ECs (75% endometrioid, >15% serous) had complete data. L1CAM overexpression was found in 16%, associated with older age, lower body mass index (BMI), advanced stage, grade 3 (97%), non‐endometrioid histology (84%), deep myometrial invasion, lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI), and ER‐negative, PR‐negative status. Tumours overexpressing L1CAM were associated with poor outcomes {hazard ratio (HR) [95% confidence interval (CI)] 3.35 [2.10–5.23] for disease‐specific survival [DSS], p < 0.0001}. PR positivity was associated with younger women, higher BMI, early stage (77% stage I), low grade (61%), endometrioid histology (90%) without LVSI or nodal disease, ER positivity (90%), p53wt tumours (55%), and favourable outcomes [HR (CI) 0.39 (0.25–0.62) for DSS, p < 0.0001]. ER positive tumours were early stage (73%), low grade, endometrioid histology, with improved DSS. Stathmin and PTEN IHC were not associated with outcomes. There was minimal agreement between IHC and mutation status for PTEN. L1CAM overexpression was significantly associated with the p53 abnormal molecular subtype, which accounted for more than 70% of the tumours overexpressing L1CAM. PR expression also correlated with molecular subtype, with most PR negative tumours being p53 abnormal. Multivariable analysis demonstrated that only ProMisE subtype [overall survival (OS), DSS, and progression‐free survival] and age (OS only) maintained an association with outcomes. The prognostic significance of the single biomarkers tested could be explained based on their being covariable with the ProMisE molecular subtype.