The Prognostic Significance of Estrogen and Progesterone Receptors in Grade I and II Endometrioid Endometrial Adenocarcinoma: Hormone Receptors in Risk Stratification

Overview

Journal J Gynecol Oncol

Specialties Gynecology & Obstetrics
Oncology

Date 2018 Nov 28

PMID 30479097

Citations 31

Authors

Jun Guan

Liying Xie

Xuezhen Luo

Bingyi Yang

Hongwei Zhang

Qin Zhu

Xiaojun Chen

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objectives: Although patients with grade I and II endometrioid endometrial adenocarcinoma (EEA) are considered with good prognosis, among them 15%-25% died in 5 years. It is still unknown whether integrating estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR) into clinical risk stratification can help select high-risk patients with grade I-II EEA. This study was to investigate the prognostic value of ER and PR double negativity (ER/PR loss) in grade I-II EEA, and the association between ER/PR loss and The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) classification.

Methods: ER and PR were assessed by immunohistochemistry on hysterectomy specimens of 903 patients with grade I-II EEA. ER and PR negativity were determined when <1% tumor nuclei were stained. Gene expression data were obtained from the TCGA research network.

Results: Compared with ER or PR positive patients (n=868), patients with ER/PR loss (n=35) had deeper myometrial infiltration (p=0.012), severer FIGO stage (p=0.004), and higher rate of pelvic lymph node metastasis (p=0.020). In univariate analysis, ER/PR loss correlated with a shorter progression-free survival (PFS; hazard ratio [HR]=5.25; 95% confidence interval [CI]=2.21-12.52) and overall survival (OS; HR=7.59; 95% CI=2.55-22.60). In multivariate analysis, ER/PR loss independently predicted poor PFS (HR=3.77; 95% CI=1.60-10.14) and OS (HR=5.56; 95% CI=1.37-22.55) for all patients, and poor PFS for patients in stage IA (n=695; HR=5.54; 95% CI=1.28-23.89) and stage II-IV (n=129; HR=5.77; 95% CI=1.57-21.27). No association was found between ER/PR loss and TCGA classification.

Conclusion: Integrating ER/PR evaluation into clinical risk stratification may improve prognosis for grade I-II EEA patients.

Citing Articles

The Cost-Effectiveness of Sentinel Lymph Node Mapping in High-Risk Endometrial Cancer.

Burg L, Vermeulen R, Bekkers R, Kruitwagen R, Zusterzeel P Cancers (Basel). 2025; 16(24.

PMID: 39766139 PMC: 11674379. DOI: 10.3390/cancers16244240.

Immunohistochemistry as a reliable predictor of remission in patients with endometrial cancer: Establishment and validation of a machine learning model.

Wang R, Wang J, Wu Y, Zhu A, Li X, Wang J Oncol Lett. 2024; 29(1):59.

PMID: 39606567 PMC: 11599912. DOI: 10.3892/ol.2024.14805.

Utility of ER, p53, CEA and Napsin A in Histological Subtyping of Endometrial Carcinoma and Their Correlation with Clinicopathological Prognostic Parameters: Experience from a Referral Institute.

Shivakumar S, Sahu K, Rao R, Gv C, Philipose C, Rai S Iran J Pathol. 2024; 19(2):236-243.

PMID: 39118789 PMC: 11304467. DOI: 10.30699/IJP.2024.2008693.3154.

EPPK1 as a Prognostic Biomarker in Type I Endometrial Cancer and Its Correlation with Immune Infiltration.

Liu L, Yuan S, Yao S, Cao W, Wang L Int J Gen Med. 2024; 17:1677-1694.

PMID: 38706750 PMC: 11067944. DOI: 10.2147/IJGM.S449986.

Emerging Advances in Endometrial Cancer: Integration of Molecular Classification into Staging for Enhanced Prognostic Accuracy and Implications for Racial Disparities.

Ogunmuyiwa J, Williams V Cancers (Basel). 2024; 16(6).

PMID: 38539507 PMC: 10969571. DOI: 10.3390/cancers16061172.

References

Harvey J, Clark G, Osborne C, Allred D . Estrogen receptor status by immunohistochemistry is superior to the ligand-binding assay for predicting response to adjuvant endocrine therapy in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1999; 17(5):1474-81. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.1999.17.5.1474. View

Oreskovic S, Babic D, Kalafatic D, Barisic D, Beketic-Oreskovic L . A significance of immunohistochemical determination of steroid receptors, cell proliferation factor Ki-67 and protein p53 in endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 2004; 93(1):34-40. DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2003.12.038. View

Alkushi A, Lim P, Coldman A, Huntsman D, Miller D, Gilks C . Interpretation of p53 immunoreactivity in endometrial carcinoma: establishing a clinically relevant cut-off level. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2004; 23(2):129-37. DOI: 10.1097/00004347-200404000-00007. View

Darvishian F, Hummer A, Thaler H, Bhargava R, Linkov I, Asher M . Serous endometrial cancers that mimic endometrioid adenocarcinomas: a clinicopathologic and immunohistochemical study of a group of problematic cases. Am J Surg Pathol. 2004; 28(12):1568-78. DOI: 10.1097/00000478-200412000-00004. View

Engelsen I, Stefansson I, Akslen L, Salvesen H . Pathologic expression of p53 or p16 in preoperative curettage specimens identifies high-risk endometrial carcinomas. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006; 195(4):979-86. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2006.02.045. View

Carcangiu M, Chambers J, Voynick I, Pirro M, Schwartz P . Immunohistochemical evaluation of estrogen and progesterone receptor content in 183 patients with endometrial carcinoma. Part I: Clinical and histologic correlations. Am J Clin Pathol. 1990; 94(3):247-54. DOI: 10.1093/ajcp/94.3.247. View

Chambers J, Carcangiu M, Voynick I, Schwartz P . Immunohistochemical evaluation of estrogen and progesterone receptor content in 183 patients with endometrial carcinoma. Part II: Correlation between biochemical and immunohistochemical methods and survival. Am J Clin Pathol. 1990; 94(3):255-60. DOI: 10.1093/ajcp/94.3.255. View

Gong Y, Yan K, Lin F, Anderson K, Sotiriou C, Andre F . Determination of oestrogen-receptor status and ERBB2 status of breast carcinoma: a gene-expression profiling study. Lancet Oncol. 2007; 8(3):203-11. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(07)70042-6. View

Viale G, Regan M, Maiorano E, Mastropasqua M, DellOrto P, Rasmussen B . Prognostic and predictive value of centrally reviewed expression of estrogen and progesterone receptors in a randomized trial comparing letrozole and tamoxifen adjuvant therapy for postmenopausal early breast cancer: BIG 1-98. J Clin Oncol. 2007; 25(25):3846-52. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2007.11.9453. View

10.

Phillips T, Murray G, Wakamiya K, Askaa J, Huang D, Welcher R . Development of standard estrogen and progesterone receptor immunohistochemical assays for selection of patients for antihormonal therapy. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2007; 15(3):325-31. DOI: 10.1097/01.pai.0000213135.16783.bc. View

11.

Dowsett M, Allred C, Knox J, Quinn E, Salter J, Wale C . Relationship between quantitative estrogen and progesterone receptor expression and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER-2) status with recurrence in the Arimidex, Tamoxifen, Alone or in Combination trial. J Clin Oncol. 2008; 26(7):1059-65. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2007.12.9437. View

12.

Badve S, Baehner F, Gray R, Childs B, Maddala T, Liu M . Estrogen- and progesterone-receptor status in ECOG 2197: comparison of immunohistochemistry by local and central laboratories and quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction by central laboratory. J Clin Oncol. 2008; 26(15):2473-81. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2007.13.6424. View

13.

Lomo L, Nucci M, Lee K, Lin M, Hirsch M, Crum C . Histologic and immunohistochemical decision-making in endometrial adenocarcinoma. Mod Pathol. 2008; 21(8):937-42. DOI: 10.1038/modpathol.2008.97. View

14.

Engelsen I, Stefansson I, Akslen L, Salvesen H . GATA3 expression in estrogen receptor alpha-negative endometrial carcinomas identifies aggressive tumors with high proliferation and poor patient survival. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 199(5):543.e1-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2008.04.043. View

15.

Fujimoto T, Nanjyo H, Fukuda J, Nakamura A, Mizunuma H, Yaegashi N . Endometrioid uterine cancer: histopathological risk factors of local and distant recurrence. Gynecol Oncol. 2008; 112(2):342-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.10.019. View

16.

Jongen V, Briet J, Jong R, ten Hoor K, Boezen M, van der Zee A . Expression of estrogen receptor-alpha and -beta and progesterone receptor-A and -B in a large cohort of patients with endometrioid endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2008; 112(3):537-42. DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.10.032. View

17.

Kitchener H, Trimble E . Endometrial cancer state of the science meeting. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2009; 19(1):134-40. DOI: 10.1111/IGC.0b013e3181995f90. View

18.

Simon R, Paik S, Hayes D . Use of archived specimens in evaluation of prognostic and predictive biomarkers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009; 101(21):1446-52. PMC: 2782246. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djp335. View

19.

Garg K, Leitao Jr M, Wynveen C, Sica G, Shia J, Shi W . p53 overexpression in morphologically ambiguous endometrial carcinomas correlates with adverse clinical outcomes. Mod Pathol. 2009; 23(1):80-92. DOI: 10.1038/modpathol.2009.153. View

20.

Tangjitgamol S, Anderson B, See H, Lertbutsayanukul C, Sirisabya N, Manchana T . Management of endometrial cancer in Asia: consensus statement from the Asian Oncology Summit 2009. Lancet Oncol. 2009; 10(11):1119-27. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(09)70290-6. View