Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

TCGA Molecular Subgroups in Endometrial Undifferentiated/Dedifferentiated Carcinoma

  • Review
  • Published:
Pathology & Oncology Research

Abstract

We aimed to classify undifferentiated/dedifferentiated carcinoma (UDC/DDC) according to the four TCGA molecular subgroups of endometrial cancer: microsatellite-instable/hypermutated (MSI), POLE-mutant/ultramutated (POLE), copy-number-low/p53-wild-type (p53wt), and copy-number-high/p53-abnormal (p53abn), through a systematic review and meta-analysis. Electronic databases were searched from January 2013 to July 2019 for studies assessing the TCGA classification in endometrial UDC/DDC series. Pooled prevalence of each TCGA subgroup on the total UDC/DDCs was calculated. Three studies with 73 patients were included. Pooled prevalence of the TCGA subgroups were: 12.4% for the POLE subgroup, 44% for the MSI subgroup, 18.6% for the p53abn subgroup, 25% for the p53wt group. All TCGA groups are represented in UDC/DDC, with a predominance of the MSI group, indicating a biological heterogeneity. Hypermutated/ultramutated cancers constitute the majority of UDC/DDC, suggesting a crucial difference with other high-risk histologies of endometrial carcinoma.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A (2015) Cancer statistics, 2015. CA Cancer J Clin 65(1):5–29

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Travaglino A, Raffone A, Saccone G et al (2019) Immunohistochemical nuclear expression of β-catenin as a surrogate of CTNNB1 exon 3 mutation in endometrial Cancer. Am J Clin Pathol 151(5):529–538

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Raffone A, Travaglino A, Mascolo M et al (2019) TCGA molecular groups of endometrial cancer: Pooled data about prognosis. Gynecol Oncol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2019.08.019

  4. Raffone A, Travaglino A, Santoro A et al (2019) Accuracy of one-step nucleic acid amplification in detecting lymph node metastases in endometrial Cancer. Pathol Oncol Res. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12253-019-00727-9

  5. Travaglino A, Raffone A, Saccone G et al (2019) Immunohistochemical predictive markers of response to conservative treatment of endometrial hyperplasia and early endometrial cancer: a systematic review. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.13587

  6. Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network et al (2013) Integrated genomic characterization of endometrial carcinoma. Nature 497(7447):67–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Stelloo E, Nout RA, Osse EM et al (2016) Improved risk assessment by integrating molecular and clinicopathological factors in early-stage endometrial cancer-combined analysis of the PORTEC cohorts. Clin Cancer Res 22(16):4215–4224

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Bosse T, Nout RA, McAlpine JN et al (2018) Molecular classification of grade 3 endometrioid endometrial cancers identifies distinct prognostic subgroups. Am J Surg Pathol 42(5):561–568

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Cosgrove CM, Tritchler DL, Cohn DE et al (2018 Jan) An NRG oncology/GOG study of molecular classification for risk prediction in endometrioid endometrial cancer. GynecolOncol. 148(1):174–180

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Talhouk A, McConechy MK, Leung S et al (2015) A clinically applicable molecular-based classification for endometrial cancers. Br J Cancer 113(2):299–310

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Talhouk A, McConechy MK, Leung S et al (2017) Confirmation of ProMisE: a simple, genomics-based clinical classifier for endometrial cancer. Cancer. 123(5):802–813

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kommoss S, McConechy MK, Kommoss F et al (2018 May 1) Final validation of the ProMisE molecular classifier for endometrial carcinoma in a large population-based case series. AnnOncol. 29(5):1180–1188

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Hoang LN, Kinloch MA, Leo JM et al (2017 Feb) Interobserver agreement in endometrial carcinoma Histotype diagnosis varies depending on the Cancer genome atlas (TCGA)-based molecular subgroup. Am J Surg Pathol 41(2):245–252

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Raffone A, Travaglino A, Saccone G et al (2019) Management of women with atypical polypoid adenomyoma of the uterus: a quantitative systematic review. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.13553

  15. Lionetti R, De Luca M, Travaglino A et al (2019 Jul) Treatments and overall survival in patients with Krukenberg tumor. Arch Gynecol Obstet 300(1):15–23

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Travaglino A, Raffone A, Saccone G et al (2019) Nuclear expression of β-catenin in endometrial hyperplasia as marker of premalignancy. APMIS. https://doi.org/10.1111/apm.12988

  17. Raffone A, Travaglino A, Saccone G et al (2019) Should progesterone and estrogens receptors be assessed for predicting the response to conservative treatment of endometrial hyperplasia and cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.13586

  18. Travaglino A, Raffone A, Saccone A et al (2019) Immunophenotype of atypical Polypoid Adenomyoma of the uterus: diagnostic value and insight on pathogenesis. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. https://doi.org/10.1097/PAI.0000000000000780

  19. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M et al (2015) Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic Reviews 4:1

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME et al (2011) QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 155(8):529–536

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Travaglino A, Raffone A, Saccone G et al (2019) Congruence between 1994 WHO classification of endometrial hyperplasia and endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia system. Am J Clin Pathol. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcp/aqz132

  22. Raffone A, Travaglino A, Saccone G et al (2019) PTEN expression in endometrial hyperplasia and risk of cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Gynecol Obstet 299(6):1511–1524

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Travaglino A, Raffone A, Mascolo M et al (2019) Clear cell endometrial carcinoma and the TCGA classification. Histopathology. https://doi.org/10.1111/his.13976

  24. Travaglino A, Raffone A, Saccone G et al (2019) PTEN immunohistochemistry in endometrial hyperplasia: which are the optimal criteria for the diagnosis of precancer? APMIS 127(4):161–169

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Raffone A, Travaglino A, Saccone G et al (2019) Endometrial hyperplasia and progression to cancer: which classification system stratifies the risk better? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Gynecol Obstet 299(5):1233–1242

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Travaglino A, Raffone A, Saccone G et al (2019) Significant risk of occult cancer in complex non-atypical endometrial hyperplasia. Arch Gynecol Obstet. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-019-05299-2

  27. Raffone A, Travaglino A, Saccone G et al (201) Diabetes mellitus is associated with occult cancer in endometrial hyperplasia. Pathol Oncol Res. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12253-019-00684-3

  28. Raffone A, Travaglino A, Saccone G et al (2019) Diagnostic and prognostic value of ARID1A in endometrial hyperplasia: a novel marker of occult cancer. APMIS. https://doi.org/10.1111/apm.12977

  29. Raffone A, Travaglino A, Saccone G et al (2019) Diabetes mellitus and responsiveness of endometrial hyperplasia and early endometrial cancer to conservative treatment. Gynecol Endocrinol 5:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/09513590.2019.1624716

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Meng B, Hoang LN, McIntyre JB et al (2014) POLE exonuclease domain mutation predicts long progression-free survival in grade 3 endometrioid carcinoma of the endometrium. Gynecol Oncol 134(1):15–19

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Stewart CJ, Crook ML (2015) SWI/SNF complex deficiency and mismatch repair protein expression in undifferentiated and dedifferentiated endometrial carcinoma. Pathology. 47(5):439–445

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Coatham M, Li X, Karnezis AN et al (2016) Concurrent ARID1A and ARID1B inactivation in endometrial and ovarian dedifferentiated carcinomas. Mod Pathol 29(12):1586–1593

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Ramalingam P, Croce S, McCluggage WG (2017) Loss of expression of SMARCA4 (BRG1), SMARCA2 (BRM) and SMARCB1 (INI1) in undifferentiated carcinoma of the endometrium is not uncommon and is not always associated with rhabdoid morphology. Histopathology. 70(3):359–366

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Rosa-Rosa JM, Leskelä S, Cristóbal-Lana E et al (2016) Molecular genetic heterogeneity in undifferentiated endometrial carcinomas. Mod Pathol 29(11):1390–1398

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Espinosa I, Lee CH, D’Angelo E, Palacios J, Prat J (2017) Undifferentiated and dedifferentiated endometrial carcinomas with POLE exonuclease domain mutations have a favorable prognosis. Am J Surg Pathol 41(8):1121–1128

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Köbel M, Hoang LN, Tessier-Cloutier B et al (2018) Undifferentiated endometrial carcinomas show frequent loss of core switch/sucrose nonfermentable complex proteins. Am J Surg Pathol 42(1):76–83

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Murali R, Davidson B, Fadare O et al (2019) High-grade endometrial carcinomas: morphologic and Immunohistochemical features, diagnostic challenges and recommendations. Int J Gynecol Pathol 38 Suppl 1:S40–S63

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Silverberg SG, Nogales F, Tavassoli FA, Devilee P (eds) (2003) Tumours of the uterine corpus. Pathology and genetics: Tumours of the breast and female genital organs. IARC Press. World Health Organization Classification of Tumours, Lyon, pp 217–257

    Google Scholar 

  39. Zaino R, Carinelli SG, Eng C, Kurman RJ, Carcangiu ML, Herrington CS, Young RH (eds) (2014) Tumours of the uterine corpus. WHO classification of tumours of female reproductive organs. IARC Press. World Health Organization Classification of Tumours, Lyon, pp 121–154

    Google Scholar 

  40. Karnezis AN, Hoang LN, Coatham M et al (2016) Loss of switch/sucrose non-fermenting complex protein expression is associated with dedifferentiation in endometrial carcinomas. Mod Pathol 29:302–314

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Abu-Rustum NR, Yashar CM, Bean S, et al (2019) NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology (NCCN Guidelines®) – Uterine Neoplasms. Version 3.Feb 11 2019

  42. Stelloo E, Bosse T, Nout RA et al (2015) Refining prognosis and identifying targetable pathways for high-risk endometrial cancer; a TransPORTEC initiative. Mod Pathol 28(6):836–844

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Cherniack AD, Shen H, Walter V et al (2017) Integrated molecular characterization of uterine Carcinosarcoma. Cancer Cell 31(3):411–423

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Hacking S, Jin C, Komforti M, Liang S, Nasim M (2019) MMR deficient undifferentiated/dedifferentiated endometrial carcinomas showing significant programmed death ligand-1 expression (sp 142) with potential therapeutic implications. Pathol Res Pract 22:152552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prp.2019.152552

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Goodman AM, Kato S, Bazhenova L et al (2017) Tumor mutational burden as an independent predictor of response to immunotherapy in diverse cancers. Mol Cancer Ther 16(11):2598–2608

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

AT, AR and MG independently assessed electronic search, eligibility of the studies, inclusion criteria, risk of bias, data extraction and data analysis. Disagreements were resolved by discussion with MM, LI, GFZ and FZ. MG, MM and LI contributed to the elaboration of methods for risk of bias assessment, data extraction and analysis. AT, AR and FZ conceived the study; MM, MG, LI and FZ worked on the design of the study; AT, AR, MG, MM, LI, GFZ and FZ worked on the manuscript preparation; GFZ and FZ supervised the whole study.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Antonio Raffone.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Authors report no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

Molecular/immunohistochemical features and TCGA subgroup assigned for each patient in the included studies. (DOCX 21 kb)

ESM 2

Flow diagram of studies identified in the systematic review (Prisma template [Preferred Reporting Item for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses]). (PNG 68 kb)

High Resolution (TIF 29 kb)

ESM 3

Summary of risk of bias for each study; Plus sign: low risk of bias; minus sign: high risk of bias; question mark: unclear risk of bias. (PNG 31 kb)

High Resolution (TIF 10 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Travaglino, A., Raffone, A., Mascolo, M. et al. TCGA Molecular Subgroups in Endometrial Undifferentiated/Dedifferentiated Carcinoma. Pathol. Oncol. Res. 26, 1411–1416 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12253-019-00784-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12253-019-00784-0

Keywords

Navigation