ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: There is poor evidence regarding sensitivity to chemotherapy in endometrial cancer (EC) based on microsatellite instability (MSI)/mismatch repair (MMR) status. METHODOLOGY: The RAME study is a retrospective analysis aiming to assess response to chemotherapy in MSI-high (h)/deficient (d) MMR and MSI-low (l)/proficient (p) MMR EC patients. Primary endpoints were recurrence-free survival (RFS) for patients with localized disease and progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with advanced/recurrent disease. RESULTS: A total of 312 patients treated between 2010 and 2022 in four high-volume Multicenter Italian Trial in Ovarian cancer and gynecological malignancies (MITO) centers were selected. In total, 239 patients had endometrioid EC (76.6%), 151 had FIGO stage I at diagnosis (48.9%) and 71 were MSI-h/dMMR (22.8%). Median age was 65 (range 31-91) years. Among patients with localized disease, median RFS was 100.0 months (95% CI 59.4-140.7) for MSI-l/pMMR and 120.9 months (60.0-181.8) for MSI-h/dMMR (p = 0.39). Seventy-seven patients received first-line chemotherapy for advanced/recurrent disease. Patients with MSI-h/dMMR ECs had a significantly worse OS (p = 0.039). In patients receiving platinum-based chemotherapy, no statistically significant differences in PFS (p = 0.21) or OS (p = 0.057) were detected, although PFS and OS were numerically longer in the MSI-l/pMMR population. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with metastatic MSI-h/dMMR EC receiving first-line chemotherapy had a significantly worse OS.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: The molecular classification for endometrial cancer (EC) introduced by The Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network (TCGA) and the Proactive Molecular Risk Classifier for Endometrial Cancer (ProMisE) proved the existence of four molecular prognostic subtypes; however, both classifications require costly technology. We suggest a prognostic model for EC based on immunohistochemistry (IHC) and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs). STUDY DESIGN: One hundred patients were included. We retrospectively investigated IHC prognostic parameters: mismatch repair (MMR)-deficient tumors, p53 mutation status, progesterone receptors (PgRs), and estrogen receptors (ERs). We further evaluated TILs. These parameters were related to the clinical and morphological features and to the outcome. RESULTS: We classified tumors into three groups (IHC analysis): MMR-deficient, p53-mutated, p53 wild-type. MMR-deficient tumors had a good prognosis, p53 wild-type tumors an intermediate one, and p53-mutated tumors had the poorest outcomes. Disease-free (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were significantly better among PgR+ tumors (respectively p = 0.011 and p = 0.001) and PgR expression is an independent prognostic factor for a better DFS frommultivariate analysis (OR = 0.3; CI: 0.1-0.9; p = 0.03).No significant correlation was observed between DFS and TILs. However, among MMR-deficient tumors, the mean value of TILs was higher than among the other tumors(111 versus 71, p = 0.01) Conclusions: The prognostic model based on IHC markers could potentially be a valid and applicable alternative to the TCGA one. The PgR determination could represent an additional prognostic factor for EC.
