Progesterone Receptor Expression Is an Independent Prognosticator in FIGO Stage I Uterine Leiomyosarcoma.

OBJECTIVES: To analyze the clinical role of hormone receptors in a large uterine sarcomas series with long-term follow-up. METHODS: Protein expression of estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR) by immunohistochemistry was studied in tissue microarrays from 294 patients diagnosed with uterine sarcoma in Norway from 1970 to 2000 and analyzed for an association with clinicopathologic parameters and outcome. RESULTS: ER and PR were detected in 136 of 291 and 184 of 291 tumors (three noninformative cases each), respectively. Expression was unrelated to histology, patient age, tumor diameter, the degree of atypia, the presence of necrosis or vascular invasion, or mitotic counts. ER and PR expression was unrelated to survival in the analysis of the entire cohort. When survival analysis was confined to stage I leiomyosarcoma (n = 147), higher PR score was significantly related to longer overall survival (OS) (P = .042). Clinicopathologic prognosticators in this group were age (P = .041), tumor diameter (P = .001), and mitotic count (P = .007), with a trend for atypia (P = .087). In Cox multivariate analysis, PR score (P = .019), tumor diameter (P = .013), and mitotic count (P = .002) were independent prognosticators of OS. CONCLUSIONS: Hormone receptor expression is not informative of outcome in the analysis of uterine sarcomas of all stages and histologic types. PR expression identifies patients with longer survival in stage I leiomyosarcoma.

Gene expression signatures of primary and metastatic uterine leiomyosarcoma.

Leiomyosarcoma (LMS) is the most common uterine sarcoma. Although the disease is relatively rare, it is responsible for considerable mortality due to frequent metastasis and chemoresistance. The molecular events related to LMS metastasis are unknown to date. The present study compared the global gene expression patterns of primary uterine LMSs and LMS metastases. Gene expression profiles of 13 primary and 15 metastatic uterine LMSs were analyzed using the HumanRef-8 BeadChip from Illumina. Differentially expressed candidate genes were validated using quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and immunohistochemistry. To identify differently expressed genes between primary and metastatic tumors, we performed one-way analysis of variance with Benjamini-Hochberg correction. This led to identification of 203 unique probes that were significantly differentially expressed in the 2 tumor groups by greater than 1.58-fold with P < .01, of which 94 and 109 were overexpressed in primary and metastatic LMSs, respectively. Genes overexpressed in primary uterine LMSs included OSTN, NLGN4X, NLGN1, SLITRK4, MASP1, XRN2, ASS1, RORB, HRASLS, and TSPAN7. Genes overexpressed in LMS metastases included TNNT1, FOLR3, TDO2, CRYM, GJA1, TSPAN10, THBS1, SGK1, SHMT1, EGR2, and AGT. Quantitative real-time PCR confirmed significant anatomical site-related differences in FOLR3, OSTN, and NLGN4X levels; and immunohistochemistry showed significant differences in TDO2 expression. Gene expression profiling differentiates primary uterine LMSs from LMS metastases. The molecular signatures unique to primary and metastatic LMSs may aid in understanding tumor progression in this cancer and in providing a molecular basis for prognostic studies and therapeutic target discovery.

Gene expression signatures differentiate uterine endometrial stromal sarcoma from leiomyosarcoma.

OBJECTIVE: Endometrial stromal sarcoma (ESS) and leiomyosarcoma (LMS) are the two most common uterine sarcomas, but both are rare tumors. The aim of the present study was to compare the global gene expression patterns of ESS and LMS. METHODS: Gene expression profiles of 7 ESS and 13 LMS were analyzed using the HumanRef-8 BeadChip from Illumina. Differentially expressed candidate genes were validated using quantitative real-time PCR and immunohistochemistry. RESULTS: Unsupervised hierarchical clustering using all 54,675 genes in the array separated ESS from LMS samples. We identified 549 unique probes that were significantly differentially expressed in the two malignancies by greater than 2-fold with 1% FDR cutoff using one-way ANOVA with Benjamini-Hochberg correction, of which 336 and 213 were overexpressed in ESS and LMS, respectively. Genes overexpressed in ESS included SLC7A10, EFNB3, CCND2, ECEL1, ITM2A, NPW, PLAG1 and GCGR. Genes overexpressed in LMS included CDKN2A, FABP3, TAGLN, JPH2, GEM, NAV2 and RAB23. The top 100 genes overexpressed in LMS included those coding for myosin light chain and caldesmon, but not the genes coding for desmin or actin. CD10 was not overexpressed in ESS. Results for selected genes were validated by quantitative real-time PCR and immunohistochemistry. CONCLUSIONS: We present the first study in which gene expression profiling was shown to distinguish between ESS and LMS. The molecular signatures unique to each of these malignancies may aid in expanding the diagnostic battery for their differentiation, and may provide a molecular basis for prognostic studies and therapeutic target discovery.

DNA ploidy may be a prognostic marker in stage I and II serous adenocarcinoma of the endometrium.

In patients with serous adenocarcinoma (SAC) of the endometrium, we evaluated the prognostic importance of clinicopathological parameters, DNA ploidy, and immunoexpression of p53, estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and Ki-67. In a series of 73 stage I and II SAC, DNA ploidy analysis was performed on hysterectomy specimens using DNA image cytometry. Immunohistochemical analysis of p53, ER, PR, and Ki-67 expression was additionally performed. In the review of the histological slides by three gynecologic pathologists, the presence of a serous component was not agreed upon in 17 (23 %) cases. The remaining 56 cases, consisting of pure SAC or SAC mixed with endometrioid adenocarcinoma, were further analyzed. Tumor recurrence was observed in 14 patients, and 28 patients died during the follow-up period. Patients with diploid (n = 19), aneuploid (n = 29), and tetraploid (n = 8) tumor had 5-year recurrence rates of 10, 38, and 53 %, respectively (p = 0.09). A DNA ploidy parameter, 5c exceeding rate, was found to be a prognostic marker for recurrence (p = 0.03), progression-free survival (p < 0.01), and overall survival (p = 0.02). Immunoexpression of p53, ER, PR, and Ki-67 did not have prognostic value, and the same was true for FIGO stage, lymphovascular invasion, the extent of myometrial invasion, and lymphadenectomy. The histological diagnosis of SAC may be difficult in some cases. Established clinicopathological parameters do not seem to be strong prognosticators in stage I and II disease. A DNA ploidy parameter, 5c exceeding rate, may be a prognostic marker in this patient group and should be further validated in larger series.

DNA ploidy heterogeneity in endometrial carcinoma: comparison between curettage and hysterectomy specimens.

DNA ploidy has been reported to be a prognostic marker for patients with endometrial carcinoma. In this study, DNA ploidy and histologic heterogeneity were evaluated by comparing curettage and hysterectomy specimens in 99 consecutive patients diagnosed with endometrial carcinoma. High-resolution DNA ploidy image analysis and review of histologic specimens were performed. The histologic subtypes were identical in 77 (78%) and differed in 22 (22%) cases. The DNA ploidy results were concordant in the curettage and hysterectomy specimens in 72 (72.7%) and discordant in 27 (27.3%) cases. Histologic heterogeneity was significantly associated with DNA ploidy heterogeneity (P=0.03). On the basis of histologic heterogeneity, DNA ploidy-discordant cases were divided into 2 groups. One group (16.2% of cases) consisted of specimens with similar histology in curettage and hysterectomy, all belonging to the endometrioid subtype. This group showed DNA ploidy discordance because of a DNA diploid peak in 1 specimen and an aneuploid peak (DI=1.05-1.2) in the other. The other group (11.1% of cases) consisted of cases with different histologic subtype or grade and showed a more pronounced DNA ploidy difference (diploid vs. aneuploid with DI>1.2). Our results suggest that the DNA ploidy results of the hysterectomy and curettage specimens are not identical. The difference observed, which we believe reflects the intratumoral heterogeneity, should be taken into account when applying DNA ploidy to endometrial carcinoma specimens.

Gross genomic alterations differ between serous borderline tumors and serous adenocarcinomas--an image cytometric DNA ploidy analysis of 307 cases with histogenetic implications.

Our objective was to study the gross genomic alterations in serous borderline tumors and serous adenocarcinomas of the ovary. A retrospective analysis of 245 serous borderline tumors and 62 serous adenocarcinomas from 249 patients was performed using high-resolution image cytometric DNA ploidy analysis. DNA ploidy status, S-phase fraction, and DNA index were evaluated. The majority of serous borderline tumors were diploid (225/245 cases, 92%). The remaining 8% showed an aneuploid peak predominantly with DNA index of less than 1.4. Grades 2 and 3 serous adenocarcinomas were more often (80%) nondiploid, mostly with DNA index exceeding 1.4. Grade 1 serous adenocarcinomas were an intermediate group, more similar to serous borderline tumors. The S-phase fraction increased from serous borderline tumors (mean = 0.6%) through grade 1 serous adenocarcinomas (mean = 2.8%), being highest in grades 2 and 3 adenocarcinomas (mean = 6.8%). Our findings support the hypothesis that serous borderline tumors and grades 2 and 3 serous adenocarcinomas are genomically different lesions, with grade 1 serous adenocarcinomas being an intermediate group more close to borderline tumors.