ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to determine whether lower expression levels of DICER1 are associated with disease recurrence in patients with endometrioid endometrial cancer. The authors also explored DNA methylation and haploinsufficiency as potential mechanisms related to altered DICER1 expression in these tumors. METHODS: DICER1 expression was assessed by quantitative polymerase chain reaction in a selected cohort of endometrioid endometrial tumors (N = 169). Loss of heterozygosity analyses were conducted using 2 single nucleotide polymorphisms, and combined bisulfate restriction analysis was used to assess methylation in the 5'-untranslated region of DICER1 in representative tumors. The correlations between DICER1 expression and clinicopathologic variables, including overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS), were assessed using nonparametric rank-sum tests and Cox proportional hazard models as appropriate. Survival distributions were described using the Kaplan-Meier method. A nested case-control analysis was conducted to confirm the association between transcript levels and disease recurrence. RESULTS: Lower DICER1 expression (hazard ratio [HR], 1.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05-1.75; P = .02) and advanced disease stage (HR, 2.79; 95%CI, 1.59-4.90; P < .001) were associated with worse DFS. Three variables were associated significantly with reduced OS: age (HR, 1.04; 95%CI, 1.02-1.06; P < .0001), advanced disease stage (HR, 6.41; 95%CI, 3.57-11.52; P < .0001), and high tumor grade (HR, 2.96; 95%CI, 1.46-5.99; P = .003). Nested case-control analyses confirmed that there were lower DICER1 transcript levels in patients who had recurrent disease (P = .01). Deletion of DICER1 sequences was an infrequent event (5% of analyzed patients), and no methylation was observed in the 5' DICER1 regulatory region. CONCLUSIONS: Lower DICER1 transcript levels were correlated with disease recurrence and worse DFS survival in patients with endometrioid endometrial cancer. The factors that influence DICER1 transcript levels in primary endometrial cancers remain unknown.
Subject(s)
DEAD-box RNA Helicases/metabolism , Endometrial Neoplasms/metabolism , Ribonuclease III/metabolism , Aged , DNA Methylation , Disease-Free Survival , Down-Regulation , Female , Haploinsufficiency , Humans , Loss of Heterozygosity , Middle Aged , Recurrence , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Recent randomized controlled data suggest that neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) with interval debulking (ID) may produce similar overall survival and progression free survival compared to standard primary cytoreduction followed by chemotherapy. The object of our study was to assess current patterns of care among members of the Society of Gynecologic Oncologists (SGO), specifically collating their opinions on and use of NACT for advanced stage ovarian cancer. METHODS: A 20-item questionnaire was sent to all working e-mail addresses of SGO members (n=1137). The data was collected and analyzed using descriptive statistics with commercially available online survey software. The Chi-square test for independence was used to determine differences in responses between groups. RESULTS: Of 339 (30%) responding members, most rarely employ NACT, with 60% of respondents using NACT in less than 10% of advanced stage ovarian cancer cases. Respondents did not consider available evidence sufficient to justify NACT followed by ID (82%), nor did most think it should be preferred (74%). Sixty-two percent of respondents thought it was impossible to accurately predict preoperatively whether an optimal cytoreduction is possible. Thirty-nine percent believed that women with bulky upper abdominal disease on preoperative imaging would benefit from NACT versus primary debulking. If gross disease were found at ID, 43% would continue to treat with IV chemotherapy, and 42% would place an IP port if optimally cytoreduced. When ID reveals microscopic disease, 51% would continue IV treatment and the remaining IP therapy. Eighty-six percent of the respondents believed that both biological and surgical factors determine patient outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of responding SGO members do not treat patients with NACT followed by ID. Currently available studies of NACT/ID have been insufficient to convince most gynecologic oncologists to incorporate it into practice. Our results provide a benchmark against which further research can assess the penetration of NACT/ID into clinical practice.
