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

Navya Nair, Olga Camacho-Vanegas, Dmitry Rykunov, Matthew Dashkoff, Sandra Catalina Camacho, Cassie A Schumacher, Jonathan C Irish, Timothy T Harkins, Elijah Freeman, Isaac Garcia, Elena Pereira, Sviatoslav Kendall, Rachel Belfer, Tamara Kalir, Robert Sebra, Boris Reva, Peter Dottino, John A Martignetti, Navya Nair, Olga Camacho-Vanegas, Dmitry Rykunov, Matthew Dashkoff, Sandra Catalina Camacho, Cassie A Schumacher, Jonathan C Irish, Timothy T Harkins, Elijah Freeman, Isaac Garcia, Elena Pereira, Sviatoslav Kendall, Rachel Belfer, Tamara Kalir, Robert Sebra, Boris Reva, Peter Dottino, John A Martignetti

Abstract

Background: Endometrial cancer is the most common gynecologic malignancy, and its incidence and associated mortality are increasing. Despite the immediate need to detect these cancers at an earlier stage, there is no effective screening methodology or protocol for endometrial cancer. The comprehensive, genomics-based analysis of endometrial cancer by The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) revealed many of the molecular defects that define this cancer. Based on these cancer genome results, and in a prospective study, we hypothesized that the use of ultra-deep, targeted gene sequencing could detect somatic mutations in uterine lavage fluid obtained from women undergoing hysteroscopy as a means of molecular screening and diagnosis.

Methods and findings: Uterine lavage and paired blood samples were collected and analyzed from 107 consecutive patients who were undergoing hysteroscopy and curettage for diagnostic evaluation from this single-institution study. The lavage fluid was separated into cellular and acellular fractions by centrifugation. Cellular and cell-free DNA (cfDNA) were isolated from each lavage. Two targeted next-generation sequencing (NGS) gene panels, one composed of 56 genes and the other of 12 genes, were used for ultra-deep sequencing. To rule out potential NGS-based errors, orthogonal mutation validation was performed using digital PCR and Sanger sequencing. Seven patients were diagnosed with endometrial cancer based on classic histopathologic analysis. Six of these patients had stage IA cancer, and one of these cancers was only detectable as a microscopic focus within a polyp. All seven patients were found to have significant cancer-associated gene mutations in both cell pellet and cfDNA fractions. In the four patients in whom adequate tumor sample was available, all tumor mutations above a specific allele fraction were present in the uterine lavage DNA samples. Mutations originally only detected in lavage fluid fractions were later confirmed to be present in tumor but at allele fractions significantly less than 1%. Of the remaining 95 patients diagnosed with benign or non-cancer pathology, 44 had no significant cancer mutations detected. Intriguingly, 51 patients without histopathologic evidence of cancer had relatively high allele fraction (1.0%-30.4%), cancer-associated mutations. Participants with detected driver and potential driver mutations were significantly older (mean age mutated = 57.96, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.30-∞, mean age no mutations = 50.35; p-value = 0.002; Benjamini-Hochberg [BH] adjusted p-value = 0.015) and more likely to be post-menopausal (p-value = 0.004; BH-adjusted p-value = 0.015) than those without these mutations. No associations were detected between mutation status and race/ethnicity, body mass index, diabetes, parity, and smoking status. Long-term follow-up was not presently available in this prospective study for those women without histopathologic evidence of cancer.

Conclusions: Using ultra-deep NGS, we identified somatic mutations in DNA extracted both from cell pellets and a never previously reported cfDNA fraction from the uterine lavage. Using our targeted sequencing approach, endometrial driver mutations were identified in all seven women who received a cancer diagnosis based on classic histopathology of tissue curettage obtained at the time of hysteroscopy. In addition, relatively high allele fraction driver mutations were identified in the lavage fluid of approximately half of the women without a cancer diagnosis. Increasing age and post-menopausal status were associated with the presence of these cancer-associated mutations, suggesting the prevalent existence of a premalignant landscape in women without clinical evidence of cancer. Given that a uterine lavage can be easily and quickly performed even outside of the operating room and in a physician's office-based setting, our findings suggest the future possibility of this approach for screening women for the earliest stages of endometrial cancer. However, our findings suggest that further insight into development of cancer or its interruption are needed before translation to the clinic.

Conflict of interest statement

I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: TH, CAS, and JI are paid employees of Swift Biosciences.

Figures

Fig 1. Overview of the study pipeline…
Fig 1. Overview of the study pipeline beginning with collection of uterine lavage fluid at the initiation of hysteroscopy.
Figure designed by Jill Gregory.
Fig 2. Microscopic views of hematoxylin-eosin stained…
Fig 2. Microscopic views of hematoxylin-eosin stained sections of all seven uterine cancer specimens diagnosed by classic histopathology.
(A) PT398: endometrioid, stage IA/grade 1 cancer. Arrow points to minute (<1 mm) focus of adenocarcinoma, adjacent to benign inactive endometrium (40x). (B) PT433: endometrioid, stage 1A/grade 1 cancer. Malignant glands organized in cribiform architecture. A small area of squamous differentiation is noted by the arrow (200x). (C) PT451: endometrioid, stage 1A/grade 1 cancer. Arrow points to a small focus of adenocarcinoma arising within the endometrial mucosa (40x). (D) PT484: endometrioid, stage 1A/grade 2 cancer arising within a polyp. Noted are cribiformed glands and complex architecture within the carcinoma (100x). (E1) PT468: fragment of high grade serous carcinoma with hyperchromatic nuclei (arrows) arranged in a complex glandular pattern (200x). (E2) PT468: another fragment of this tumor with grade 1–2 endometrioid carcinoma, with back-to-back glands (arrows) and lower-grade nuclei than the serous component presented in E1 (100x). (F) PT488: carcinosarcoma, stage 3A/grade 3 showing the biphasic features of high-grade carcinoma (top arrow pointing to the left of the image) and high-grade sarcoma (bottom arrow pointing to the right of the image) (40x). (G) PT492: endometrioid, stage IA/grade 1 cancer. High-power view of the cribiformed glands composed of malignant cells with atypical nuclei (arrow highlights one of these) depicting a grade 1 endometrioid adenocarcinoma ("L," lumen of the malignant glands) (400x).
Fig 3. Flowchart depicting the numbers of…
Fig 3. Flowchart depicting the numbers of patients in each step of the study: enrollment, sample collection, ultra-deep sequencing of samples, and molecular and histopathological classification.
Fig 4. Mutation distributions detected by the…
Fig 4. Mutation distributions detected by the 12-gene panel among the study cohort.
Patients are represented along the x-axis first by their histopathologic diagnosis (represented in top bar) then by total mutation number. Mutation types were color-coded hierarchically, displaying the most consequential mutation type (driver, potential driver, passenger) detected at each patient/gene intersection, as some genes carried multiple mutations. NGS-defined mutations validated by dPCR or Sanger sequencing are represented by a black dot. Note: a number of genes had multiple mutations validated.
Fig 5. Patients with somatic mutations identified…
Fig 5. Patients with somatic mutations identified by NGS using the targeted 12-gene panel.
Patients are ordered based on the sum of driver and potential driver mutations. Highlighted cases are those in which cancer was diagnosed by histopathology. Patient 433 is not represented because her samples were sequenced using the 56-gene panel.

References

    1. American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts & Figures 2016. Atlanta: American Cancer Society, 2016.
    1. Rahib L, Smith BD, Aizenberg R, Rosenzweig AB, Fleshman JM, Matrisian LM. Projecting Cancer Incidence and Deaths to 2030: The Unexpected Burden of Thyroid, Liver, and Pancreas Cancers in the United States. Cancer Res. 2014. June 1;74(11):2913–21. 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-14-0155
    1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2016: Cancer Statistics, 2016. CA Cancer J Clin. 2016. January;66(1):7–30. 10.3322/caac.21332
    1. Goldstein RB, Bree RL, Benson CB, Benacerraf BR, Bloss JD, Carlos R, et al. Evaluation of the woman with postmenopausal bleeding: Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound-Sponsored Consensus Conference statement. J Ultrasound Med Off J Am Inst Ultrasound Med. 2001. October;20(10):1025–36.
    1. Katz Vern L.. Comprehensive Gynecology. Fifth edition Philadelphia: Mosby Elsevier; 2007.
    1. Soleymani E, Ziari K, Rahmani O, Dadpay M, Taheri-Dolatabadi M, Alizadeh K, et al. Histopathological findings of endometrial specimens in abnormal uterine bleeding. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2014. April;289(4):845–9. 10.1007/s00404-013-3043-1
    1. Abid M, Hashmi AA, Malik B, Haroon S, Faridi N, Edhi MM, et al. Clinical pattern and spectrum of endometrial pathologies in patients with abnormal uterine bleeding in Pakistan: need to adopt a more conservative approach to treatment. BMC Womens Health [Internet]. 2014. December [cited 2016 Jul 4];14(1).
    1. Gimpelson RJ, Rappold HO. A comparative study between panoramic hysteroscopy with directed biopsies and dilatation and curettage. A review of 276 cases. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1988. March;158(3 Pt 1):489–92.
    1. Traut HF, Papanicolaou GN. Cancer of the Uterus: The Vaginal Smear in Its Diagnosis. Calif West Med. 1943. August;59(2):121–2.
    1. McGowan L. Cytologic methods for the detection of endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 1974. August;2(2–3):272–8.
    1. Boone JD, Erickson BK, Huh WK. New insights into cervical cancer screening. J Gynecol Oncol. 2012;23(4):282 10.3802/jgo.2012.23.4.282
    1. Morton DG, Moore JG, Chang N. Endometrial lavage as an aid in the diagnosis of carcinoma of the endometrium. West J Surg Obstet Gynecol. 1957. June;65(3):113–25.
    1. Guralp O, Sheridan SM, Harter J, Hinshaw JL, Seo S, Hartenbach EM, et al. A New Diagnostic Test for Endometrial Cancer?: Cytology Analysis of Sonohysterography Distention Media. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2013. September;23(7):1252–7. 10.1097/IGC.0b013e31829fe8f6
    1. Rotenberg O, Renz M, Reimers L, Doulaveris G, Gebb J, Goldberg GL, et al. Simultaneous Endometrial Aspiration and Sonohysterography for the Evaluation of Endometrial Pathology in Women Aged 50 Years and Older: Obstet Gynecol. 2015. February;125(2):414–23. 10.1097/AOG.0000000000000631
    1. Lopata A, Agresta F, Quinn MA, Smith C, Ostor AG, Salamonsen LA. Detection of endometrial cancer by determination of matrix metalloproteinases in the uterine cavity. Gynecol Oncol. 2003. August;90(2):318–24.
    1. Bouquier J, Blons H, Narjoz C, Lécuru F, Laurent-Puig P, Bats A-S. Microsatellite instability analysis in uterine cavity washings as a screening tool for endometrial cancer in Lynch syndrome. Fam Cancer. 2011. December;10(4):655–7. 10.1007/s10689-011-9470-x
    1. Kinde I, Bettegowda C, Wang Y, Wu J, Agrawal N, Shih I-M, et al. Evaluation of DNA from the Papanicolaou Test to Detect Ovarian and Endometrial Cancers. Sci Transl Med. 2013. January 9;5(167):167ra4–167ra4. 10.1126/scitranslmed.3004952
    1. Maritschnegg E, Wang Y, Pecha N, Horvat R, Van Nieuwenhuysen E, Vergote I, et al. Lavage of the Uterine Cavity for Molecular Detection of Mullerian Duct Carcinomas: A Proof-of-Concept Study. J Clin Oncol. 2015. December 20;33(36):4293–300. 10.1200/JCO.2015.61.3083
    1. Getz G, Gabriel SB, Cibulskis K, Lander E, Sivachenko A, Sougnez C, et al. Integrated genomic characterization of endometrial carcinoma. Nature. 2013. May 1;497(7447):67–73. 10.1038/nature12113
    1. Talhouk A, McConechy MK, Leung S, Li-Chang HH, Kwon JS, Melnyk N, et al. A clinically applicable molecular-based classification for endometrial cancers. Br J Cancer. 2015. July 14;113(2):299–310. 10.1038/bjc.2015.190
    1. McConechy MK, Ding J, Cheang MC, Wiegand KC, Senz J, Tone AA, et al. Use of mutation profiles to refine the classification of endometrial carcinomas. J Pathol. 2012;228(1):20–30. 10.1002/path.4056
    1. Pengelly RJ, Gibson J, Andreoletti G, Collins A, Mattocks CJ, Ennis S. A SNP profiling panel for sample tracking in whole-exome sequencing studies. Genome Med. 2013;5(9):89 10.1186/gm492
    1. Martin M. Cutadapt removes adapter sequences from high-throughput sequencing reads. EMBnet.journal. 2011. May 2;17(1):10.
    1. Li H, Durbin R. Fast and accurate short read alignment with Burrows-Wheeler transform. Bioinforma Oxf Engl. 2009. July 15;25(14):1754–60.
    1. Pereira E, Camacho-Vanegas O, Anand S, Sebra R, Catalina Camacho S, Garnar-Wortzel L, et al. Personalized Circulating Tumor DNA Biomarkers Dynamically Predict Treatment Response and Survival In Gynecologic Cancers. Samimi G, editor. PLoS ONE. 2015. December 30;10(12):e0145754 10.1371/journal.pone.0145754
    1. Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network, Kandoth C, Schultz N, Cherniack AD, Akbani R, Liu Y, et al. Integrated genomic characterization of endometrial carcinoma. Nature. 2013. May 2;497(7447):67–73. 10.1038/nature12113
    1. Cerami E, Gao J, Dogrusoz U, Gross BE, Sumer SO, Aksoy BA, et al. The cBio cancer genomics portal: an open platform for exploring multidimensional cancer genomics data. Cancer Discov. 2012. May;2(5):401–4. 10.1158/-12-0095
    1. Forbes SA, Beare D, Gunasekaran P, Leung K, Bindal N, Boutselakis H, et al. COSMIC: exploring the world’s knowledge of somatic mutations in human cancer. Nucleic Acids Res. 2015. January;43(Database issue):D805–11. 10.1093/nar/gku1075
    1. Reva B, Antipin Y, Sander C. Predicting the functional impact of protein mutations: application to cancer genomics. Nucleic Acids Res. 2011. September 1;39(17):e118 10.1093/nar/gkr407
    1. Ciriello G, Miller ML, Aksoy BA, Senbabaoglu Y, Schultz N, Sander C. Emerging landscape of oncogenic signatures across human cancers. Nat Genet. 2013. October;45(10):1127–33. 10.1038/ng.2762
    1. Reva B. Revealing selection in cancer using the predicted functional impact of cancer mutations. Application to nomination of cancer drivers. BMC Genomics. 2013;14 Suppl 3:S8.
    1. Gnad F, Baucom A, Mukhyala K, Manning G, Zhang Z. Assessment of computational methods for predicting the effects of missense mutations in human cancers. BMC Genomics. 2013;14 Suppl 3:S7.
    1. Montanari GD, Marconato A, Grismondi GL, Giaretta MI, Montanari GR. Endometrial lavage as an aid in the cytochemical detection of adenocarcinomata. Cancer. 1966. November;19(11):1578–82.
    1. Reagan JW, Sommerville RL. A cellular study of uterine aspirations. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1954. September;68(3):781–5.
    1. Bettegowda C, Sausen M, Leary RJ, Kinde I, Wang Y, Agrawal N, et al. Detection of Circulating Tumor DNA in Early- and Late-Stage Human Malignancies. Sci Transl Med. 2014. February 19;6(224):224ra24–224ra24. 10.1126/scitranslmed.3007094
    1. Dawson S-J, Tsui DWY, Murtaza M, Biggs H, Rueda OM, Chin S-F, et al. Analysis of Circulating Tumor DNA to Monitor Metastatic Breast Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2013. March 28;368(13):1199–209. 10.1056/NEJMoa1213261
    1. American Cancer Society. Endometrial (Uterine) Cancers [Internet]. 2016.
    1. Matias-guiu X, Catasus L, Bussaglia E, Lagarda H, Garcia A, Pons C, et al. Molecular pathology of endometrial hyperplasia and carcinoma. Hum Pathol. 2001. June;32(6):569–77. 10.1053/hupa.2001.25929
    1. Mao T-L, Ardighieri L, Ayhan A, Kuo K-T, Wu C-H, Wang T-L, et al. Loss of ARID1A expression correlates with stages of tumor progression in uterine endometrioid carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2013. September;37(9):1342–8. 10.1097/PAS.0b013e3182889dc3
    1. Matteson KA, Raker CA, Clark MA, Frick KD. Abnormal Uterine Bleeding, Health Status, and Usual Source of Medical Care: Analyses Using the Medical Expenditures Panel Survey. J Womens Health. 2013. November;22(11):959–65.
    1. Bradley LD, Gueye N-A. The medical management of abnormal uterine bleeding in reproductive-aged women. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016. January;214(1):31–44. 10.1016/j.ajog.2015.07.044
    1. Clark TJ, Voit D, Gupta JK, Hyde C, Song F, Khan KS. Accuracy of hysteroscopy in the diagnosis of endometrial cancer and hyperplasia: a systematic quantitative review. JAMA. 2002. October 2;288(13):1610–21.
    1. Savelli L, De Iaco P, Santini D, Rosati F, Ghi T, Pignotti E, et al. Histopathologic features and risk factors for benignity, hyperplasia, and cancer in endometrial polyps. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003. April;188(4):927–31.
    1. Ricciardi E, Vecchione A, Marci R, Schimberni M, Frega A, Maniglio P, et al. Clinical factors and malignancy in endometrial polyps. Analysis of 1027 cases. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2014. December;183:121–4. 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2014.10.021
    1. Baiocchi G, Manci N, Pazzaglia M, Giannone L, Burnelli L, Giannone E, et al. Malignancy in endometrial polyps: a 12-year experience. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009. November;201(5):462.e1–462.e4.
    1. Hassa H, Tekin B, Senses T, Kaya M, Karatas A. Are the site, diameter, and number of endometrial polyps related with symptomatology? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006. March;194(3):718–21. 10.1016/j.ajog.2005.08.060
    1. Orvieto R, Bar-Hava I, Dicker D, Bar J, Ben-Rafael Z, Neri A. Endometrial polyps during menopause: characterization and significance. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1999. November;78(10):883–6.
    1. Rahimi S, Marani C, Renzi C, Natale ME, Giovannini P, Zeloni R. Endometrial polyps and the risk of atypical hyperplasia on biopsies of unremarkable endometrium: a study on 694 patients with benign endometrial polyps. Int J Gynecol Pathol Off J Int Soc Gynecol Pathol. 2009. November;28(6):522–8.
    1. Ferrazzi E, Zupi E, Leone FP, Savelli L, Omodei U, Moscarini M, et al. How often are endometrial polyps malignant in asymptomatic postmenopausal women? A multicenter study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009. March;200(3):235.e1–235.e6.
    1. Lieng M, Qvigstad E, Sandvik L, Jørgensen H, Langebrekke A, Istre O. Hysteroscopic resection of symptomatic and asymptomatic endometrial polyps. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2007. April;14(2):189–94. 10.1016/j.jmig.2006.09.018
    1. Wethington SL, Herzog TJ, Burke WM, Sun X, Lerner JP, Lewin SN, et al. Risk and predictors of malignancy in women with endometrial polyps. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011. December;18(13):3819–23. 10.1245/s10434-011-1815-z
    1. Shushan A, Revel A, Rojansky N. How often are endometrial polyps malignant? Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2004;58(4):212–5. 10.1159/000080189
    1. Anastasiadis PG, Koutlaki NG, Skaphida PG, Galazios GC, Tsikouras PN, Liberis VA. Endometrial polyps: prevalence, detection, and malignant potential in women with abnormal uterine bleeding. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2000;21(2):180–3.
    1. Committee on Gynecologic Practice, Society of Gynecologic Oncology. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee Opinion no. 631. Endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia. Obstet Gynecol. 2015. May;125(5):1272–8. 10.1097/01.AOG.0000465189.50026.20
    1. Horn L-C, Schnurrbusch U, Bilek K, Hentschel B, Einenkel J. Risk of progression in complex and atypical endometrial hyperplasia: clinicopathologic analysis in cases with and without progestogen treatment. Int J Gynecol Cancer Off J Int Gynecol Cancer Soc. 2004. April;14(2):348–53.
    1. Rios SS, Andrade RV, Pereira RW, Wall NR, Bahjri K, Caldas É, et al. Microsatellite instability in endometrial polyps. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2010. December;153(2):193–7. 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2010.07.028
    1. Martincorena I, Campbell PJ. Somatic mutation in cancer and normal cells. Science. 2015. September 25;349(6255):1483–9. 10.1126/science.aab4082
    1. Genovese G, Kähler AK, Handsaker RE, Lindberg J, Rose SA, Bakhoum SF, et al. Clonal hematopoiesis and blood-cancer risk inferred from blood DNA sequence. N Engl J Med. 2014. December 25;371(26):2477–87. 10.1056/NEJMoa1409405
    1. Jaiswal S, Fontanillas P, Flannick J, Manning A, Grauman PV, Mar BG, et al. Age-related clonal hematopoiesis associated with adverse outcomes. N Engl J Med. 2014. December 25;371(26):2488–98. 10.1056/NEJMoa1408617
    1. McKerrell T, Park N, Moreno T, Grove CS, Ponstingl H, Stephens J, et al. Leukemia-associated somatic mutations drive distinct patterns of age-related clonal hemopoiesis. Cell Rep. 2015. March 3;10(8):1239–45. 10.1016/j.celrep.2015.02.005
    1. Jonason AS, Kunala S, Price GJ, Restifo RJ, Spinelli HM, Persing JA, et al. Frequent clones of p53-mutated keratinocytes in normal human skin. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1996. November 26;93(24):14025–9.
    1. Ling G, Persson A, Berne B, Uhlén M, Lundeberg J, Ponten F. Persistent p53 mutations in single cells from normal human skin. Am J Pathol. 2001. October;159(4):1247–53. 10.1016/S0002-9440(10)62511-4
    1. Martincorena I, Roshan A, Gerstung M, Ellis P, Van Loo P, McLaren S, et al. Tumor evolution. High burden and pervasive positive selection of somatic mutations in normal human skin. Science. 2015. May 22;348(6237):880–6. 10.1126/science.aaa6806
    1. Krimmel JD, Schmitt MW, Harrell MI, Agnew KJ, Kennedy SR, Emond MJ, et al. Ultra-deep sequencing detects ovarian cancer cells in peritoneal fluid and reveals somatic TP53 mutations in noncancerous tissues. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016. May 24;113(21):6005–10. 10.1073/pnas.1601311113
    1. Nowell PC. The clonal evolution of tumor cell populations. Science. 1976. October 1;194(4260):23–8.
    1. Stratton MR, Campbell PJ, Futreal PA. The cancer genome. Nature. 2009. April 9;458(7239):719–24. 10.1038/nature07943
    1. Abkowitz JL. Clone wars—the emergence of neoplastic blood-cell clones with aging. N Engl J Med. 2014. December 25;371(26):2523–5. 10.1056/NEJMe1412902

Source: PubMed

3
Prenumerera