Clinical actionability of molecular targets in endometrial cancer

Mary Ellen Urick, Daphne W Bell, Mary Ellen Urick, Daphne W Bell

Abstract

Endometrial cancer accounts for ~76,000 deaths among women each year worldwide. Disease mortality and the increasing number of new diagnoses make endometrial cancer an important consideration in women's health, particularly in industrialized countries, where the incidence of this tumour type is highest. Most endometrial cancers are carcinomas, with the remainder being sarcomas. Endometrial carcinomas can be classified into several histological subtypes, including endometrioid, serous and clear cell carcinomas. Histological subtyping is currently used routinely to guide prognosis and treatment decisions for endometrial cancer patients, while ongoing studies are evaluating the potential clinical utility of molecular subtyping. In this Review, we summarize the overarching molecular features of endometrial cancers and highlight recent studies assessing the potential clinical utility of specific molecular features for early detection, disease risk stratification and directing targeted therapies.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests

Dr. Bell receives royalty income from US patent No.7,294,468 “Method to determine responsiveness of cancer to epidermal growth factor receptor targeting treatments”, which is licensed to Esoterix Genetic Labs LLC. Dr. Urick has no competing interests.

Figures

Figure 1.. Overview of endometrial carcinoma origin,…
Figure 1.. Overview of endometrial carcinoma origin, development, and molecular classification.
(a) The image in this panel was deleted to comply with Nature Reviews Cancer policy on self-archiving. Schematic depiction of the initiation and progression of endometrioid (B) and serous (C) endometrial carcinomas (ECs) from the normal and atrophic endometrial glandular epithelium, via precursor lesions (CAH and SEIC). Columnar epithelial cells that have acquired somatic mutations are colored; intratumoral heterogeneity is depicted by differentially colored epithelial cells. PTEN mutation and TP53 mutation are, respectively, early events in the etiology of many endometrioid and serous endometrial carcinomas. In some instances, carcinomas, particularly high-grade carcinomas, undergo an epithelial to mesenchymal transition to give rise to uterine carcinosarcomas, which are biphasic tumors consisting of epithelial carcinoma cells and sarcoma cells (blue). (D) Pie charts showing the distribution (% of tumors) of low grade (grade 1 and grade 2) endometrioid EC, high grade (grade 3) endometrioid EC, and serous EC among the four molecular subgroups delineated in The Cancer Genome Atlas.
Figure 2.. Minimally invasive sampling methods for…
Figure 2.. Minimally invasive sampling methods for endometrial cancer (EC) patients. (a.) Tao brush sampling with PapSEEK test:
women testing positive for aneuploidy in any of ~38,000 loci of long interspersed nucleotide elements or mutation in any of 18 genes would be sent for confirmatory testing. PapSEEK testing of Tao brush samples accurately detected EC in 93% of women tested with EC; out of 125 women without EC, none tested positive. (b.) Uterine lavage samples analyzed on a 12 gene next generation sequencing panel detected cancer in 7 women with EC; mutations in the 12 genes were also detected in 51 of 95 women with a non-cancerous uterus. Two images in this Figure were deleted to comply with Nature Reviews Cancer policy on self-archiving.
Figure 3.. Molecular-based risk/treatment stratification strategies for…
Figure 3.. Molecular-based risk/treatment stratification strategies for endometrial cancer (EC) patients.
(a.) The TransPORTEC molecular classification system currently being tested in the PORTEC-4a clinical trial and (b.) the Proactive Molecular Risk Classifier for EC (ProMisE). (c.) Distribution of endometrial cancer patients in molecular subgroups. Each cohort consisted of the following EC patients: TCGA (n=232: 186 EEC, 42 SEC, 4 Mixed ECs), TransPORTEC high risk (n=116: 86 high risk EEC, 12 SEC, 18 CCEC), TransPORTEC early stage (n=834 early stage EEC), ProMisE discovery (n=143: 119 EEC, 15 SEC, 8 mixed, 1 undif; 64 ESMO high risk), ProMisE confirmation (n=319; 215 EEC, 5 CCEC, 89 SEC, 10 other; 173 ESMO high risk), ProMisE validation (n=452; 397 EEC, 34 SEC, 21 CCEC/mixed; 131 ESMO high risk), ProMisE young (n= 257 <50 yo: 225 EEC, 17 NEEC, 15 unknown; 21 ESMO high risk). Abbreviations: Clear Cell Endometrial Cancer (CCEC); Catenin Beta 1 (CTNNB1); Exonuclease Domain Mutation (EDM); Exonuclease Domain Wildtype (EDWT); Endometrioid Endometrial Cancer (EEC); European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO); Immunohistochemistry (IHC); lymphovascular space invasion [G] (LVSI); MicroSatellite Instable (MSI); Mismatch Repair-Deficient (MMR-D); No Specific Molecular Profile (NSMP); polymerase-ε mutated (POLE); Proactive Molecular Risk Classifier for Endometrial Cancer (ProMisE); Serous Endometrial Cancer (SEC); The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA); Translational Research in Post-Operative Radiation Therapy in Endometrial Carcinoma (TransPORTEC); tumor protein 53 (p53); Undifferentiated (undif); wild-type (WT); year-old (yo).
Figure 4.. Functional grouping of genes in…
Figure 4.. Functional grouping of genes in which aberrations are acquired in metastases of endometrial cancer (EC)
,–,.

References

    1. American Cancer Society. Cancer facts & figures 2019. Atlanta:American Cancer Society; (2019).
    1. Amant F, Mirza MR, Koskas M & Creutzberg CL Cancer of the corpus uteri. Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstets 143 Suppl 2, 37–50 (2018).
    1. Gruber SB & Thompson WD A population-based study of endometrial cancer and familial risk in younger women. Cancer and steroid hormone study group. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev 5, 411–417 (1996).
    1. Lynch HT, Snyder CL, Shaw TG, Heinen CD & Hitchins MP Milestones of Lynch syndrome: 1895–2015. Nat. Rev. Cancer 15, 181–194 (2015).
    1. Palles C, Latchford A & Valle L Adenomatous Polyposis Syndromes: Polymerase Proofreading-Associated Polyposis In: Valle L, Gruber S, Capellá G (eds) Hereditary Colorectal Cancer. Springer, Cham; (2018).
    1. Ngeow J, Stanuch K, Mester JL, Barnholtz-Sloan JS & Eng C Second malignant neoplasms in patients with Cowden syndrome with underlying germline PTEN mutations. J. Clin. Oncol 32, 1818–1824 (2014).
    1. Gaber C, Meza R, Ruterbusch JJ & Cote ML Endometrial cancer trends by race and histology in the USA: Projecting the number of new cases from 2015 to 2040. J Racial Ethn. Health Disparitie (2016).
    1. Setiawan VW et al. Type I and II endometrial cancers: Have they different risk factors? J. Clin. Oncol 31, 2607–2618 (2013).
    1. Brinton LA et al. Etiologic heterogeneity in endometrial cancer: evidence from a Gynecologic Oncology Group trial. Gynecol. Oncol 129, 277–284 (2013).
    1. Lortet-Tieulent J, Ferlay J, Bray F & Jemal A International patterns and trends in endometrial cancer incidence, 1978–2013. J. Natl. Cancer Inst 110, 354–361 (2018).
    1. Clarke MA, Devesa SS, Harvey SV & Wentzensen N Hysterectomy-corrected uterine corpus cancer incidence trends and differences in relative survival reveal racial disparities and rising rates of nonendometrioid cancers. J. Clin. Oncol, JCO1900151, doi:10.1200/JCO.19.00151 (2019).
    1. Faber MT, Frederiksen K, Jensen A, Aarslev PB & Kjaer SK Time trends in the incidence of hysterectomy-corrected overall, type 1 and type 2 endometrial cancer in Denmark 1978–2014. Gynecol. Oncol 146, 359–367 (2017).
    1. Dedes KJ, Wetterskog D, Ashworth A, Kaye SB & Reis-Filho JS Emerging therapeutic targets in endometrial cancer. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol 8, 261–271 (2011).
    1. Noone AM et al. SEER cancer statistics review, 1975–2015, National Cancer Institute. Bethesda, MD,, based on November 2017 SEER data submission, posted to the SEER web site, April 2018.
    1. Kandoth C et al. Integrated genomic characterization of endometrial carcinoma. Nature 497, 67–73 (2013).
    2. Landmark TCGA study that reported the molecular genomic landscape of endometrioid and serous endometrial carcinomas, defining four distinct molecular subgroups.
    1. Cherniack AD et al. Integrated molecular characterization of uterine carcinosarcoma. Cancer Cell 31, 411–423 (2017).
    2. Landmark TCGA study that reported the molecular genomic landscape of 57 uterine carcinosarcomas.
    1. Le Gallo M et al. Exome sequencing of serous endometrial tumors identifies recurrent somatic mutations in chromatin-remodeling and ubiquitin ligase complex genes. Nat. Genetics 44, 1310–1315 (2012).
    1. Le Gallo M et al. The FOXA2 transcription factor is frequently somatically mutated in uterine carcinosarcomas and carcinomas. Cancer 124, 65–73 (2018).
    1. Le Gallo M et al. Somatic mutation profiles of clear cell endometrial tumors revealed by whole exome and targeted gene sequencing. Cancer 123, 3261–3268 (2017).
    1. Jones S et al. Genomic analyses of gynaecologic carcinosarcomas reveal frequent mutations in chromatin remodelling genes. Nat. Comm 5, 5006 (2014).
    1. DeLair DF et al. The genetic landscape of endometrial clear cell carcinomas. J. Pathol 243, 230–24 (2017).
    1. Kinde I et al. Evaluation of DNA from the Papanicolaou test to detect ovarian and endometrial cancers. Sci. Transl. Med 5, 167ra164 (2013).
    2. First study to show that endometrial cancer- associated mutations could be detected during routine Pap tests; led to the development of the prototype “PapGene” test (2013).
    1. Zhao S & Santin AD Mutational landscape of uterine and ovarian carcinosarcomas implicates histone genes in epithelial–mesenchymal transition. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 113, 12238–12243 (2016).
    1. Kuhn E et al. Identification of molecular pathway aberrations in uterine serous carcinoma by genome-wide analyses. J. Nat. Cancer Inst 104, 1503–1513 (2012).
    1. McConechy MK et al. Use of mutation profiles to refine the classification of endometrial carcinomas. J. Pathol 228, 20–30 (2012).
    1. Felix AS et al. Factors associated with Type I and Type II endometrial cancer. Cancer Causes & Control 21, 1851–1856 (2010).
    1. Sherman ME et al. Risk factors and hormone levels in patients with serous and endometrioid uterine carcinomas. Mod. Pathol 10, 963–968 (1997).
    1. Yang HP et al. Endometrial cancer risk factors by 2 main histologic subtypes: the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study. Am. J. Epidemiol 177, 142–151 (2013).
    1. Mutter GL, Monte NM, Neuberg D, Ferenczy A & Eng C Emergence, involution, and progression to carcinoma of mutant clones in normal endometrial tissues. Cancer Res 74, 2796–2802 (2014).
    1. Levine RL et al. PTEN mutations and microsatellite instability in complex atypical hyperplasia, a precursor lesion to uterine endometrioid carcinoma. Cancer Res. 58, 3254–3258 (1998).
    1. Mutter GL et al. Altered PTEN expression as a diagnostic marker for the earliest endometrial precancers. J. Natl. Cancer Inst 92, 924–930 (2000).
    1. Lin MC, Burkholder KA, Viswanathan AN, Neuberg D & Mutter GL Involution of latent endometrial precancers by hormonal and nonhormonal mechanisms. Cancer 115, 2111–2118 (2009).
    1. Russo M et al. Clonal evolution in paired endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia/atypical hyperplasia and endometrioid adenocarcinoma. Hum. Pathol 67, 69–77 (2017).
    1. Lazo de la Vega L et al. Multiclonality and marked branched evolution of low-grade endometrioid endometrial carcinoma. Mol. Cancer Res 17, 731–740 (2019).
    1. Mota A et al. Genetic analysis of uterine aspirates improves the diagnostic value and captures the intra-tumor heterogeneity of endometrial cancers. Mod. Pathol 30, 134–145 (2017).
    1. Joshi A, Miller C Jr., Baker SJ & Ellenson LH Activated mutant p110alpha causes endometrial carcinoma in the setting of biallelic Pten deletion. Am. J. Pathol 185, 1104–1113 (2015).
    1. Urick ME et al. PIK3R1 (p85alpha) is somatically mutated at high frequency in primary endometrial cancer. Cancer Res.71, 4061–4067 (2011).
    1. Cheung LW et al. High frequency of PIK3R1 and PIK3R2 mutations in endometrial cancer elucidates a novel mechanism for regulation of PTEN protein stability. Cancer Discov. 1, 170–185 (2011).
    1. Oda K et al. PIK3CA cooperates with other phosphatidylinositol 3’-kinase pathway mutations to effect oncogenic transformation. Cancer Res. 68, 8127–8136 (2008).
    1. Oda K, Stokoe D, Taketani Y & McCormick F High frequency of coexistent mutations of PIK3CA and PTEN genes in endometrial carcinoma. Cancer Res. 65, 10669–10673 (2005).
    1. Terakawa J et al. Ovarian insufficiency and CTNNB1 mutations drive malignant transformation of endometrial hyperplasia with altered PTEN/PI3K activities. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A, doi:10.1073/pnas.1814506116 (2019).
    1. Wang H et al. DNA mismatch repair deficiency accelerates endometrial tumorigenesis in Pten heterozygous mice. Am. J. Pathol 160, 1481–1486 (2002).
    1. Byron SA et al. FGFR2 point mutations in 466 endometrioid endometrial tumors: relationship with MSI, KRAS, PIK3CA, CTNNB1 mutations and clinicopathological features. PLoS One 7, e30801 (2012).
    1. Wang X, Khatri S, Broaddus R, Wang Z & Hawkins SM Deletion of Arid1a in reproductive tract mesenchymal cells reduces fertility in female mice. Biol. Reprod 94, 93 (2016).
    1. Kim TH et al. ARID1A Is essential for endometrial function during early pregnancy. PLoS Genet 11, e1005537 (2015).
    1. Ayhan A et al. Increased proliferation in atypical hyperplasia/endometrioid intraepithelial neoplasia of the endometrium with concurrent inactivation of ARID1A and PTEN tumour suppressors. J. Pathol. Clin. Res 1, 186–193 (2015).
    1. Sherman ME, Bur ME & Kurman RJ p53 in endometrial cancer and its putative precursors: evidence for diverse pathways of tumorigenesis. Hum. Pathol 26, 1268–1274 (1995).
    1. Lax SF, Kendall B, Tashiro H, Slebos RJ & Hedrick L The frequency of p53, K-ras mutations, and microsatellite instability differs in uterine endometrioid and serous carcinoma: evidence of distinct molecular genetic pathways. Cancer 88, 814–824 (2000).
    1. Wild PJ et al. p53 suppresses type II endometrial carcinomas in mice and governs endometrial tumour aggressiveness in humans. EMBO Mol. Med 4, 808–82 (2012).
    1. Daikoku T et al. Conditional loss of uterine Pten unfailingly and rapidly induces endometrial cancer in mice. Cancer Res. 68, 5619–5627 (2008).
    1. Kuhn E, Bahadirli-Talbott A & Shih Ie M Frequent CCNE1 amplification in endometrial intraepithelial carcinoma and uterine serous carcinoma. Mod. Pathol 27, 1014–1019 (2014).
    1. Zhao S et al. Landscape of somatic single-nucleotide and copy-number mutations in uterine serous carcinoma. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 110, 2916–2912 (2013).
    1. Rudd ML et al. A unique spectrum of somatic PIK3CA (p110alpha) mutations within primary endometrial carcinomas. Clin. Cancer Res 17, 1331–1340 (2011).
    1. Haesen D et al. Recurrent PPP2R1A mutations in uterine cancer act through a dominant-negative mechanism to promote malignant cell growth. Cancer Res. 76, 5719–5731 (2016).
    1. Urick ME & Bell DW In vitro effects of FBXW7 mutation in serous endometrial cancer: Increased levels of potentially druggable proteins and sensitivity to SI-2 and dinaciclib. Mol. Carcinog 57, 1445–1457 (2018).
    1. McConechy MK et al. In-depth molecular profiling of the biphasic components of uterine carcinosarcomas. J. Pathol. Clin. Res 1, 173–185 (2015).
    1. Chiyoda T et al. Expression profiles of carcinosarcoma of the uterine corpus-are these similar to carcinoma or sarcoma? Genes Chromosom. Cancer 51, 229–239 (2012).
    1. Jin Z et al. Carcinosarcomas (malignant mullerian mixed tumors) of the uterus and ovary: a genetic study with special reference to histogenesis. Int. J. Gynecol. Pathol 22, 368–373 (2003).
    1. Abeln EC et al. Molecular genetic evidence for the conversion hypothesis of the origin of malignant mixed mullerian tumours. J. Pathol 183, 424–431 (1997).
    1. Wada H et al. Molecular evidence that most but not all carcinosarcomas of the uterus are combination tumors. Cancer Res. 57, 5379–5385 (1997).
    1. Nieto MA, Huang RY, Jackson RA & Thiery JP EMT: 2016. Cell 166, 21–45 (2016).
    1. Thiery JP, Acloque H, Huang RY & Nieto MA Epithelial-mesenchymal transitions in development and disease. Cell 139, 871–890 (2009).
    1. An HJ, Logani S, Isacson C & Ellenson LH Molecular characterization of uterine clear cell carcinoma. Mod. Pathol 17, 530–537 (2004).
    1. Hoang LN et al. Targeted mutation analysis of endometrial clear cell carcinoma. Histopathology 66, 664–674 (2014).
    1. Han G et al. Endometrial carcinomas with clear cells: A study of a heterogeneous group of tumors including interobserver variability, mutation analysis, and immunohistochemistry with HNF-1beta. Int. J. Gynecol. Pathol 34, 323–333 (2015).
    1. Stelloo E et al. Refining prognosis and identifying targetable pathways for high-risk endometrial cancer; a TransPORTEC initiative. Mod. Pathol 28, 836–844 (2015).
    1. McConechy MK et al. Endometrial carcinomas with POLE exonuclease domain mutations have a favorable prognosis. Clin. Cancer Res 22, 2865–2873 (2016).
    1. Church DN et al. Prognostic significance of POLE proofreading mutations in endometrial cancer. J. Natl. Cancer Inst 107, 402 (2015).
    1. Meng B et al. POLE exonuclease domain mutation predicts long progression-free survival in grade 3 endometrioid carcinoma of the endometrium. Gynecol. Oncol 134, 15–19 (2014).
    1. Hussein YR et al. Clinicopathological analysis of endometrial carcinomas harboring somatic POLE exonuclease domain mutations. Mod. Pathol 28, 505–514 (2015).
    1. Billingsley CC et al. Polymerase varepsilon (POLE) mutations in endometrial cancer: clinical outcomes and implications for Lynch syndrome testing. Cancer 121, 386–394 (2015).
    1. van Gool IC et al. POLE proofreading mutations elicit an antitumor immune response in endometrial cancer. Clin. Cancer Res 21, 3347–33557 (2015).
    1. Bellone S et al. Polymerase epsilon (POLE) ultra-mutated tumors induce robust tumor-specific CD4+ T cell responses in endometrial cancer patients. Gynecol. Oncol 138, 11–17 (2015).
    1. Shukla SA, Howitt BE, Wu CJ & Konstantinopoulos PA Predicted neoantigen load in non-hypermutated endometrial cancers: Correlation with outcome and tumor-specific genomic alterations. Gynecol. Oncol. Rep 19, 42–45 (2017).
    1. Howitt BE 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. 1, 1319–1323 (2015).
    1. Eggink FA et al. Immunological profiling of molecularly classified high-risk endometrial cancers identifies POLE-mutant and microsatellite unstable carcinomas as candidates for checkpoint inhibition. Oncoimmunology 6, e1264565 (2017).
    1. Bellone S et al. Polymerase epsilon (POLE) ultra-mutation in uterine tumors correlates with T lymphocyte infiltration and increased resistance to platinum-based chemotherapy in vitro. Gynecol. Oncol 144, 146–152 (2017).
    1. Van Gool IC et al. Adjuvant treatment for POLE proofreading domain-mutant cancers: sensitivity to radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and nucleoside analogues. Clin. Cancer Res 24, 3197–3203 (2018).
    1. Talhouk A et al. Molecular subtype not immune response drives outcomes in endometrial carcinoma. Clin. Cancer Res 25, 2537–2548 (2019).
    1. Clarke MA et al. Association of endometrial cancer risk with postmenopausal bleeding in women: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Intern. Med 178, 1210–1222 (2018).
    1. Wang Y et al. Evaluation of liquid from the Papanicolaou test and other liquid biopsies for the detection of endometrial and ovarian cancers. Sci. Transl. Med 10, eaap8793 (2018). Publication demonstrating detection of early stage endometrial cancers from samples collected during routine Pap tests using the “PapSEEK” test (2018).
    1. Del Priore G et al. Endometrial brush biopsy for the diagnosis of endometrial cancer. J Reprod. Med 46, 439–443 (2001).
    1. Kipp BR et al. Direct uterine sampling with the Tao brush sampler using a liquid-based preparation method for the detection of endometrial cancer and atypical hyperplasia: a feasibility study. Cancer 114, 228–235 (2008).
    1. Maksem J, Sager F & Bender R Endometrial collection and interpretation using the Tao brush and the CytoRich fixative system: a feasibility study. Diagn. Cytopathol 17, 339–346 (1997).
    1. Wu HH, Casto BD & Elsheikh TM Endometrial brush biopsy. An accurate outpatient method of detecting endometrial malignancy. J. Reprod. Med 48, 41–45 (2003).
    1. Nair N et al. Genomic Analysis of uterine lavage fluid detects early endometrial cancers and reveals a prevalent landscape of driver mutations in women without histopathologic evidence of cancer: a prospective cross-sectional study. PLoS Med. 13, e1002206 (2016).
    1. Maritschnegg E et al. Lavage of the uterine cavity for molecular detection of mullerian duct carcinomas: a proof-of-concept study. J. Clin. Oncol 33, 4293–4300 (2015).
    1. Suda K et al. Clonal expansion and diversification of cancer-associated mutations in endometriosis and normal endometrium. Cell Reports 24, 1777–1789 (2018).
    1. Anglesio MS et al. Cancer-associated mutations in endometriosis without cancer. N. Engl. J. Med 376, 1835–1848 (2017).
    1. Guo SW Cancer driver mutations in endometriosis: Variations on the major theme of fibrogenesis. Reprod. Med. Bio l 17, 369–397 (2018).
    1. Martignetti JA et al. Detection of endometrial precancer by a targeted gynecologic cancer liquid biopsy. Cold Spring Harb. Mol. Case Stud 4, pii: a003269 (2018).
    1. Bakkum-Gamez JN et al. Detection of endometrial cancer via molecular analysis of DNA collected with vaginal tampons. Gynecol. Oncol 137, 14–22 (2015).
    1. Fiegl H et al. Methylated DNA collected by tampons--a new tool to detect endometrial cancer. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev 13, 882–888 (2004).
    1. Talhouk A et al. A clinically applicable molecular-based classification for endometrial cancers. Br. J. Cancer 113, 299–310 (2015).
    1. Wortman BG et al. Ten-year results of the PORTEC-2 trial for high-intermediate risk endometrial carcinoma: improving patient selection for adjuvant therapy. Br. J. Cancer 119, 1067–1074 (2018).
    1. Stelloo E et al. Improved risk assessment by integrating molecular and clinicopathological factors in early-stage endometrial cancer-combined analysis of the PORTEC cohorts. Clin. Cancer Res 22, 4215–4224 (2016).
    2. Description of the TransPORTEC molecular classification system that is currently being tested in clinical trials of endometrial cancer patients.
    1. US National Library of Medicine. , . (2018).
    1. Auguste A et al. Refinement of high-risk endometrial cancer classification using DNA damage response biomarkers: a TransPORTEC initiative. Mod. Pathol 31, 1851–1861 (2018).
    1. Talhouk A et al. Confirmation of ProMisE: A simple, genomics-based clinical classifier for endometrial cancer. Cancer 123, 802–813 (2017).
    1. Kommoss S et al. Final validation of the ProMisE molecular classifier for endometrial carcinoma in a large population-based case series. Ann. Oncol 29, 1180–1188 (2018). Description of the “locked down” ProMisE molecular classifier that is now ready for clinical evaluation (2018).
    1. Britton H et al. Molecular classification defines outcomes and opportunities in young women with endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol. Oncol 153, 487–495 (2019).
    1. Stelloo E et al. High concordance of molecular tumor alterations between pre-operative curettage and hysterectomy specimens in patients with endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol. Oncol 133, 197–204 (2014).
    1. Talhouk A & McAlpine JN New classification of endometrial cancers: the development and potential applications of genomic-based classification in research and clinical care. Gynecol. Oncol. Res. Pract 3, 14 (2016).
    1. Kurnit KC et al. CTNNB1 (beta-catenin) mutation identifies low grade, early stage endometrial cancer patients at increased risk of recurrence. Mod. Pathol 30, 1032–1041 (2017).
    1. Myers A, Barry WT, Hirsch MS, Matulonis U & Lee L Beta-catenin mutations in recurrent FIGO IA grade I endometrioid endometrial cancers. Gynecol. Oncol 134, 426–427 (2014).
    1. Wortman BG et al. Molecular-integrated risk profile to determine adjuvant radiotherapy in endometrial cancer: Evaluation of the pilot phase of the PORTEC-4a trial. Gynecol. Oncol 151, 69–75 (2018).
    1. Soslow RA et al. Endometrial carcinoma diagnosis: Use of FIGO grading and genomic subcategories in clinical practice: recommendations of the international society of gynecological pathologists. Int. J. Gynecol. Pathol 38 Suppl 1, S64–S74 (2019).
    1. Meric-Bernstam F et al. Feasibility of large-scale genomic testing to facilitate enrollment onto genomically matched clinical trials. J. Clin. Oncol 33, 2753–2762 (2015).
    1. Stockley TL et al. Molecular profiling of advanced solid tumors and patient outcomes with genotype-matched clinical trials: the Princess Margaret IMPACT/COMPACT trial. Genome Med. 8, 109 (2016).
    1. Wheler JJ et al. cancer therapy directed by comprehensive genomic profiling: a single center study. Cancer Res. 76, 3690–3701 (2016).
    1. Zehir A et al. Mutational landscape of metastatic cancer revealed from prospective clinical sequencing of 10,000 patients. Nat. Med 23, 703–713 (2017).
    1. Soumerai TE et al. Clinical utility of prospective molecular characterization in advanced endometrial cancer. Clin. Cancer Res 24, 5939–5947 (2018).
    1. Chawla A et al. Estimated cost of anticancer therapy directed by comprehensive genomic profiling in a single-center study. JCO Precis. Oncol 2, 1–11 (2018).
    1. Meng X et al. AZD1775 Increases sensitivity to olaparib and gemcitabine in cancer cells with p53 mutations. Cancers (Basel) 10, pii: E149 (2018).
    1. Meng X et al. Strategies for molecularly enhanced chemotherapy to achieve synthetic lethality in endometrial tumors with mutant p53. Obstet. Gynecol. Int 2013, 828165 (2013).
    1. Ebeid K et al. Synthetically lethal nanoparticles for treatment of endometrial cancer. Nat. Nanotechnol 13, 72–81 (2018).
    1. Meng X et al. Induction of mitotic cell death by overriding G2/M checkpoint in endometrial cancer cells with non-functional p53. Gynecol. Oncol 128, 461–469 (2013).
    1. Freedman AN et al. Use of next-generation sequencing tests to guide cancer treatment: results from a nationally representative survey of oncologists in the United States. JCO Precis. Oncol 2, 1–13 (2018).
    1. Rodon J et al. WINTHER: An international WIN Consortium precision medicine trial using genomic and transcriptomic analysis in patients with advanced malignancies. J. Clin. Oncol 36 12011 (2018).
    1. Massard C et al. High-throughput genomics and clinical outcome in hard-to-treat advanced cancers: Results of the MOSCATO 01 Trial. Cancer Discov. 7, 586–595 (2017).
    1. Schwaederle M et al. Association of biomarker-based treatment strategies with response rates and progression-free survival in refractory malignant neoplasms: a meta-analysis. JAMA Oncol. 2, 1452–1459 (2016).
    1. Jardim DL et al. Impact of a biomarker-based strategy on oncology drug development: A meta-analysis of clinical trials leading to FDA approval. J. Natl. Cancer Inst 107 pii: djv253 (2015).
    1. Tsimberidou AM et al. Personalized medicine in a phase I clinical trials program: the MD Anderson Cancer Center initiative. Clin. Cancer Res 18, 6373–6383 (2012).
    1. Lheureux S & Oza AM Endometrial cancer-targeted therapies myth or reality? Review of current targeted treatments. Eur. J. Cancer 59, 99–108 (2016).
    1. Dedes KJ et al. PTEN deficiency in endometrioid endometrial adenocarcinomas predicts sensitivity to PARP inhibitors. Sci. Transl. Med 2, 53ra75 (2010).
    1. Mendes-Pereira AM et al. Synthetic lethal targeting of PTEN mutant cells with PARP inhibitors. EMBO Mol. Med 1, 315–322 (2009).
    1. Miyasaka A et al. Anti-tumor activity of olaparib, a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, in cultured endometrial carcinoma cells. BMC Cancer 14, 179 (2014).
    1. Bian X et al. PTEN deficiency sensitizes endometrioid endometrial cancer to compound PARP-PI3K inhibition but not PARP inhibition as monotherapy. Oncogene 37, 341–351 (2018).
    1. Dosil MA et al. Palbociclib has antitumour effects on Pten-deficient endometrial neoplasias. J. Pathol 242, 152–164 (2017).
    1. Fader AN et al. Randomized phase ii trial of carboplatin-paclitaxel versus carboplatin-paclitaxel-trastuzumab in uterine serous carcinomas that overexpress human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2/neu. J Clin. Oncol 36, 2044–20516 (2018).
    1. Musselman K et al. Identification of a therapeutic target using molecular sequencing for treatment of recurrent uterine serous adenocarcinoma. Gynecol. Oncol. Rep 28, 54–57 (2019).
    1. US National Library of Medicine. , . (2019).
    1. Bergstrom CP, Geest K, O’Gara R, Corless CL & Morgan TK Discordant mutations in paired primary and metastatic endometrial adenocarcinomas identified by semiconductor-based sequencing for rapid cancer genotyping. Reprod. Sci 23, 1575–1579 (2016).
    1. Gibson WJ et al. The genomic landscape and evolution of endometrial carcinoma progression and abdominopelvic metastasis. Nat. Genet 48, 848–55 (2016).
    1. Ashley CW et al. Analysis of mutational signatures in primary and metastatic endometrial cancer reveals distinct patterns of DNA repair defects and shifts during tumor progression. Gynecol. Oncol 152, 11–19 (2019).
    1. Soslow RA et al. Clinicopathologic analysis of matched primary and recurrent endometrial carcinoma. Am. J. Surg. Pathol 36, 1771–1781 (2012).
    1. Ta RM, Hecht JL & Lin DI Discordant loss of mismatch repair proteins in advanced endometrial endometrioid carcinoma compared to paired primary uterine tumors. Gynecol. Oncol 151, 401–406 (2018).
    1. Reiter JG et al. Minimal functional driver gene heterogeneity among untreated metastases. Science 361, 1033–1037 (2018).
    1. Barroilhet L & Matulonis U The NCI-MATCH trial and precision medicine in gynecologic cancers. Gynecol. Oncol 148, 585–590 (2018).
    1. Mangat PK et al. Rationale and design of the targeted agent and profiling utilization registry study. JCO Precis. Oncol doi:DOI: 10.1200/PO.18.00122 (2018).
    1. US National Library of Medicine. , . (2019).
    1. Le DT et al. Mismatch repair deficiency predicts response of solid tumors to PD-1 blockade. Science 357, 409–413 (2017).
    2. Study describing the efficacy of single-agent pembrolizumab in mismatch repair-deficient endometrial cancer patients.
    1. Cosgrove CM et al. Epigenetic silencing of MLH1 in endometrial cancers is associated with larger tumor volume, increased rate of lymph node positivity and reduced recurrence-free survival. Gynecol. Oncol 146, 588–595 (2017).
    1. McMeekin DS et al. clinicopathologic significance of mismatch repair defects in endometrial cancer: An NRG Oncology/Gynecologic Oncology Group study. J Clin. Oncol 34, 3062–3068 (2016).
    1. Zighelboim I et al. Microsatellite instability and epigenetic inactivation of MLH1 and outcome of patients with endometrial carcinomas of the endometrioid type. J Clin. Oncol 25, 2042–2048 (2007).
    1. Ott PA et al. Safety and antitumor activity of pembrolizumab in advanced programmed death ligand 1-positive endometrial cancer: results from the KEYNOTE-028 Study. J Clin. Oncol 35, 2535–2541 (2017).
    1. Vanderstraeten A, Luyten C, Verbist G, Tuyaerts S & Amant F Mapping the immunosuppressive environment in uterine tumors: implications for immunotherapy. Cancer Immunol. Immunother 63, 545–557 (2014).
    1. Mitchell TC et al. Epacadostat plus pembrolizumab in patients with advanced solid tumors: phase i results from a multicenter, open-label phase I/II Trial (ECHO-202/KEYNOTE-037). J. Clin. Oncol doi: 10.1200/JCO.2018.78.9602 (2018).
    1. Mehnert JM et al. Immune activation and response to pembrolizumab in POLE-mutant endometrial cancer. J. Clin. Invest 126, 2334–4 (2016).
    1. Fleming GF et al. Clinical activity, safety and biomarker results from a phase Ia study of atezolizumab (atezo) in advanced/recurrent endometrial cancer (rEC). J. Clin. Oncol 35, 15_suppl, 5585–5585 (2017).
    1. Berger AC et al. A comprehensive pan-cancer molecular study of gynecologic and breast cancers. Cancer Cell 33, 690–705 (2018).
    1. Thorsson V et al. The immune landscape of cancer. Immunity 48, 812–830 e814 (2018).
    1. Chan EM et al. WRN helicase is a synthetic lethal target in microsatellite unstable cancers. Nature 568, 551–556 (2019).
    1. Behan FM et al. Prioritization of cancer therapeutic targets using CRISPR-Cas9 screens. Nature 568, 511–516 (2019).
    1. Kategaya L, Perumal SK, Hager JH & Belmont LD Werner syndrome helicase is required for the survival of cancer cells with microsatellite instability. iScience 13, 488–497 (2019).
    1. Lieb S et al. Werner syndrome helicase is a selective vulnerability of microsatellite instability-high tumor cells. Elife 8, doi:10.7554/eLife.4333 (2019).
    1. Wong A & Ngeow J Hereditary syndromes manifesting as endometrial carcinoma: how can pathological features aid risk assessment? Biomed. Res. Int 2015, 219012 (2015).
    1. McConechy MK et al. Ovarian and endometrial endometrioid carcinomas have distinct CTNNB1 and PTEN mutation profiles. Mod. Pathol 27, 128–1347 (2014).
    1. Jeske YW et al. FGFR2 mutations are associated with poor outcomes in endometrioid endometrial cancer: An NRG Oncology/Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Gynecol. Oncol 145, 366–373 (2017).
    1. Tashiro H et al. p53 gene mutations are common in uterine serous carcinoma and occur early in their pathogenesis. Am. J. Pathol 150, 177–185 (1997).
    1. US National Library of Medicine. , . (2019).
    1. US National Library of Medicine. , . (2019).
    1. US National Library of Medicine. , . (2019).
    1. US National Library of Medicine. , . (2018).

Source: PubMed

Спонсоры и соавторы

Заболевания

Медикаментозные вмешательства

Подписаться