Confirmation of ProMisE: A simple, genomics-based clinical classifier for endometrial cancer

Cancer

Volumn 123, Issue 5, 2017, Pages 802-813

  Talhouk, Aline ^a   McConechy, Melissa K ^b   Leung, Samuel ^c   Yang, Winnie ^a   Lum, Amy ^a   Senz, Janine ^a   Boyd, Niki ^a   Pike, Judith ^c   Anglesio, Michael ^a   Kwon, Janice S ^c   Karnezis, Anthony N ^a   Huntsman, David G ^a   Gilks, C Blake ^a   McAlpine, Jessica N ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^b RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF THE MCGILL UNIVERSITY HEALTH CENTRE   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

Author keywords

endometrial carcinoma; histotype; mismatch repair; p53; polymerase (POLE); prognostic; risk stratification system; The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA)

Indexed keywords

CARBOPLATIN; MISMATCH REPAIR PROTEIN; PACLITAXEL; PROTEIN P53; DNA DIRECTED DNA POLYMERASE ALPHA; POLE PROTEIN, HUMAN; TP53 PROTEIN, HUMAN; TUMOR MARKER;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BRACHYTHERAPY; CANCER CLASSIFICATION; CANCER PROGNOSIS; CANCER STAGING; COHORT ANALYSIS; ENDOMETRIUM CANCER; EXTERNAL BEAM RADIOTHERAPY; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY; INTERMEDIATE RISK POPULATION; LOW RISK POPULATION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MIDDLE AGED; MISSENSE MUTATION; MOLECULAR GENETICS; PROGRESSION FREE SURVIVAL; SEQUENCE ANALYSIS; CLASSIFICATION; DISEASE FREE SURVIVAL; ENDOMETRIUM TUMOR; GENETICS; MICROSATELLITE INSTABILITY; MISMATCH REPAIR; MOLECULAR PATHOLOGY; MUTATION; PATHOLOGY; RISK FACTOR;

ADULT; AGED; BIOMARKERS, TUMOR; DISEASE-FREE SURVIVAL; DNA MISMATCH REPAIR; DNA POLYMERASE II; ENDOMETRIAL NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MICROSATELLITE INSTABILITY; MUTATION; MUTATION, MISSENSE; NEOPLASM STAGING; PATHOLOGY, MOLECULAR; RISK FACTORS; TUMOR SUPPRESSOR PROTEIN P53;

EID: 85008425469     PISSN: 0008543X     EISSN: 10970142     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.30496     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2013. CA Cancer J Clin. 2013;63:11–30.
2. Canadian Cancer Society's Advisory Committee on Cancer Statistics. Canadian Cancer Statistics 2014. Toronto, ON: Canadian Cancer Society; 2014.
3. Gilks CB, Oliva E, Soslow RA. Poor interobserver reproducibility in the diagnosis of high-grade endometrial carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2013;37:874–881.
4. Hoang LN, McConechy MK, Kobel M, et al. Histotype-genotype correlation in 36 high-grade endometrial carcinomas. Am J Surg Pathol. 2013;37:1421–1432.
5. Murali R, Soslow RA, Weigelt B. Classification of endometrial carcinoma: more than 2 types. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15:e268–e278.
6. Bendifallah S, Canlorbe G, Collinet P, et al. Just how accurate are the major risk stratification systems for early-stage endometrial cancer? Br J Cancer. 2015;112:793–801.
7. Bendifallah S, Darai E, Ballester M. Predictive modeling: a new paradigm for managing endometrial cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23:975–988.
8. Talhouk A, McConechy MK, Leung S, et al. A clinically applicable molecular-based classification for endometrial cancers. Br J Cancer. 2015;113:299–310.
9. Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network, Kandoth C, Schultz N, et al. Integrated genomic characterization of endometrial carcinoma. Nature. 2013;497:67–73.
10. Stelloo E, Bosse T, Nout RA, et al. Refining prognosis and identifying targetable pathways for high-risk endometrial cancer; a TransPORTEC initiative. Mod Pathol. 2015;28:836–844.
11. Committee on the Review of Omics-Based Tests for Predicting Patient Outcomes in Clinical Trials; Board on Health Care Services; Board on Health Sciences Policy; Institute of Medicine; Micheel CM, Nass SJ, Omenn GS, eds. Evolution of Translational Omics: Lessons Learned and the Path Forward. Washington, DC; National Academies Press; 2012.
12. Colombo N, Preti E, Landoni F, et al. Endometrial cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2013;24(suppl 6):vi33–vi38.
13. McConechy MK, Talhouk A, Leung S, et al. Endometrial carcinomas with POLE exonuclease domain mutations have a favorable prognosis. Clin Cancer Res. 2016;22:2865–2873.
14. Grambsch PM, Therneau TM, Fleming TR. Diagnostic plots to reveal functional form for covariates in multiplicative intensity models. Biometrics. 1995;51:1469–1482.
15. Steyerberg EW, Harrell FE Jr, Borsboom GJ, Eijkemans MJ, Vergouwe Y, Habbema JD. Internal validation of predictive models: efficiency of some procedures for logistic regression analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2001;54:774–781.
16. Efron B, Tibshirani R. Improvements on Cross-Validation: The 632 + Bootstrap Method 2012. Available at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01621459.1997.10474007. Accessed May 22, 2016.
17. Han G, Sidhu D, Duggan MA, et al. Reproducibility of histological cell type in high-grade endometrial carcinoma. Mod Pathol. 2013;26:1594–1604.
18. Guan H, Semaan A, Bandyopadhyay S, et al. Prognosis and reproducibility of new and existing binary grading systems for endometrial carcinoma compared to FIGO grading in hysterectomy specimens. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2011;21:654–660.
19. Alkushi A, Kobel M, Kalloger SE, Gilks CB. High-grade endometrial carcinoma: serous and grade 3 endometrioid carcinomas have different immunophenotypes and outcomes. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2010;29:343–350.
20. Di Cello A, Rania E, Zuccala V, et al. Failure to recognize preoperatively high-risk endometrial carcinoma is associated with a poor outcome. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2015;194:153–160.
21. Morice P, Leary A, Creutzberg C, Abu-Rustum N, Darai E. Endometrial cancer. Lancet. 2016;387:1094–1108.
22. Stelloo E, Nout RA, Osse EM, et al. Improved risk assessment by integrating molecular and clinicopathological factors in early-stage endometrial cancer—combined analysis of PORTEC cohorts. Clin Cancer Res. 2016;22:4215–4224.
23. Kwon JS, Qiu F, Saskin R, Carey MS. Are uterine risk factors more important than nodal status in predicting survival in endometrial cancer? Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114:736–743.
24. McConechy MK, Talhouk A, Li-Chang HH, et al. Detection of DNA mismatch repair (MMR) deficiencies by immunohistochemistry can effectively diagnose the microsatellite instability (MSI) phenotype in endometrial carcinomas. Gynecol Oncol. 2015;137:306–310.
25. Hussein YR, Weigelt B, Levine DA, et al. Clinicopathological analysis of endometrial carcinomas harboring somatic POLE exonuclease domain mutations. Mod Pathol. 2015;28:505–514.
26. Church JM. Polymerase proofreading-associated polyposis: a new, dominantly inherited syndrome of hereditary colorectal cancer predisposition. Dis Colon Rectum. 2014;57:396–397.
27. Meng B, Hoang LN, McIntyre JB, et al. POLE exonuclease domain mutation predicts long progression-free survival in grade 3 endometrioid carcinoma of the endometrium. Gynecol Oncol. 2014;134:15–19.
28. Talhouk A, Hoang LN, McConechy MK, et al. Molecular classification of endometrial carcinoma on diagnostic specimens is highly concordant with final hysterectomy: earlier prognostic information to guide treatment. Gynecol Oncol. 2016;143:46–53.
29. Howitt BE, Shukla SA, Sholl LM, et al. Association of polymerase e-mutated and microsatellite-instable endometrial cancers with neoantigen load, number of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, and expression of PD-1 and PD-L1. JAMA Oncol. 2015;1:1319–1323.
30. Le DT, Uram JN, Wang H, et al. PD-1 blockade in tumors with mismatch-repair deficiency. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:2509–2520.
31. Menderes G, Hicks C, Black JD, Schwab CL, Santin AD. Immune checkpoint inhibitors in gynecologic cancers with lessons learned from non-gynecologic cancers. Expert Opin Biol Ther. 2016;16:989–1004.
32. Robert C, Schachter J, Long GV, et al. Pembrolizumab versus ipilimumab in advanced melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:2521–2532.