Immunohistochemical Markers and TILs Evaluation for Endometrial Carcinoma

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 req...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of clinical medicine 2022-09, Vol.11 (19), p.5678
Main Authors: Bounous, Valentina, Ferrero, Annamaria, Campisi, Paola, Fuso, Luca, Pezua Sanjinez, Jeremy, Manassero, Sabrina, De Rosa, Giovanni, Biglia, Nicoletta
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Age
Breast cancer
Cancer therapies
Chemotherapy
Clinical medicine
Cloning
Endometrial cancer
Estrogens
Laparoscopy
Medical prognosis
Mutation
Pathology
Patients
Tumors
Variables
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary: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.
ISSN:2077-0383
2077-0383
DOI:10.3390/jcm11195678