» Articles » PMID: 29505428

Molecular Classification of Grade 3 Endometrioid Endometrial Cancers Identifies Distinct Prognostic Subgroups

Abstract

Our aim was to investigate whether molecular classification can be used to refine prognosis in grade 3 endometrial endometrioid carcinomas (EECs). Grade 3 EECs were classified into 4 subgroups: p53 abnormal, based on mutant-like immunostaining (p53abn); MMR deficient, based on loss of mismatch repair protein expression (MMRd); presence of POLE exonuclease domain hotspot mutation (POLE); no specific molecular profile (NSMP), in which none of these aberrations were present. Overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) rates were compared using the Kaplan-Meier method (Log-rank test) and univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazard models. In total, 381 patients were included. The median age was 66 years (range, 33 to 96 y). Federation Internationale de Gynecologie et d'Obstetrique stages (2009) were as follows: IA, 171 (44.9%); IB, 120 (31.5%); II, 24 (6.3%); III, 50 (13.1%); IV, 11 (2.9%). There were 49 (12.9%) POLE, 79 (20.7%) p53abn, 115 (30.2%) NSMP, and 138 (36.2%) MMRd tumors. Median follow-up of patients was 6.1 years (range, 0.2 to 17.0 y). Compared to patients with NSMP, patients with POLE mutant grade 3 EEC (OS: hazard ratio [HR], 0.36 [95% confidence interval, 0.18-0.70]; P=0.003; RFS: HR, 0.17 [0.05-0.54]; P=0.003) had a significantly better prognosis; patients with p53abn tumors had a significantly worse RFS (HR, 1.73 [1.09-2.74]; P=0.021); patients with MMRd tumors showed a trend toward better RFS. Estimated 5-year OS rates were as follows: POLE 89%, MMRd 75%, NSMP 69%, p53abn 55% (Log rank P=0.001). Five-year RFS rates were as follows: POLE 96%, MMRd 77%, NSMP 64%, p53abn 47% (P=0.000001), respectively. In a multivariable Cox model that included age and Federation Internationale de Gynecologie et d'Obstetrique stage, POLE and MMRd status remained independent prognostic factors for better RFS; p53 status was an independent prognostic factor for worse RFS. Molecular classification of grade 3 EECs reveals that these tumors are a mixture of molecular subtypes of endometrial carcinoma, rather than a homogeneous group. The addition of molecular markers identifies prognostic subgroups, with potential therapeutic implications.

Citing Articles

The impact of integrated genomic analysis on molecular classifications and prognostic risk stratification in endometrial cancer: a Chinese experience.

Zheng Q, Shao D, Shu J, Zhang Q, Huang M, Wang D Front Oncol. 2025; 15:1541562.

PMID: 39980551 PMC: 11839450. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2025.1541562.


Comparative transcriptomic analysis of primary endometrial cancer and bone metastatic cancer: metastasis-associated genes and abnormal cell cycle regulation.

Wu Q, Li F, Zhang Y, Li S, Xiang C Discov Oncol. 2025; 16(1):109.

PMID: 39893325 PMC: 11787092. DOI: 10.1007/s12672-025-01850-7.


Meta-analysis of the clinicopathologic features of endometrial cancer molecular staging.

Yin X, Luo B, Li Y Front Oncol. 2025; 14():1510102.

PMID: 39839791 PMC: 11746022. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2024.1510102.


Abnormal p53 High-Grade Endometrioid Endometrial Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Casanova J, Babiciu A, Duarte G, da Costa A, Serra S, Costa T Cancers (Basel). 2025; 17(1).

PMID: 39796669 PMC: 11718986. DOI: 10.3390/cancers17010038.


Molecular classification of endometrial cancer: Impact on adjuvant treatment planning.

Zouzoulas D, Tsolakidis D, Sofianou I, Tzitzis P, Pervana S, Topalidou M Cytojournal. 2024; 21:47.

PMID: 39737128 PMC: 11683411. DOI: 10.25259/Cytojournal_37_2024.


References
1.
Bakhsh S, Kinloch M, Hoang L, Soslow R, Kobel M, Lee C . Histopathological features of endometrial carcinomas associated with POLE mutations: implications for decisions about adjuvant therapy. Histopathology. 2015; 68(6):916-24. PMC: 5650229. DOI: 10.1111/his.12878. View

2.
Bokhman J . Two pathogenetic types of endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 1983; 15(1):10-7. DOI: 10.1016/0090-8258(83)90111-7. View

3.
Talhouk A, McConechy M, Leung S, Yang W, Lum A, Senz J . Confirmation of ProMisE: A simple, genomics-based clinical classifier for endometrial cancer. Cancer. 2017; 123(5):802-813. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.30496. View

4.
Hoang L, Kinloch M, Leo J, Grondin K, Lee C, Ewanowich C . Interobserver Agreement in Endometrial Carcinoma Histotype Diagnosis Varies Depending on The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA)-based Molecular Subgroup. Am J Surg Pathol. 2017; 41(2):245-252. DOI: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000000764. View

5.
Hussein Y, Broaddus R, Weigelt B, Levine D, Soslow R . The Genomic Heterogeneity of FIGO Grade 3 Endometrioid Carcinoma Impacts Diagnostic Accuracy and Reproducibility. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2015; 35(1):16-24. PMC: 4934379. DOI: 10.1097/PGP.0000000000000212. View