The prognostic significance of estrogen and progesterone receptors in grade I and II endometrioid endometrial adenocarcinoma: hormone receptors in risk stratification.
- Author:
Jun GUAN
1
;
Liying XIE
;
Xuezhen LUO
;
Bingyi YANG
;
Hongwei ZHANG
;
Qin ZHU
;
Xiaojun CHEN
Author Information
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords: Endometrial Cancer; Endometrioid Carcinoma; Low-Grade; Estrogen Receptor; Progesterone Receptor; Biomarker
- MeSH: Adenocarcinoma*; Carcinoma, Endometrioid; Classification; Disease-Free Survival; Endometrial Neoplasms; Estrogens*; Female; Gene Expression; Genome; Humans; Hysterectomy; Immunohistochemistry; Lymph Nodes; Multivariate Analysis; Neoplasm Metastasis; Progesterone*; Prognosis; Receptors, Progesterone*
- From:Journal of Gynecologic Oncology 2019;30(1):e13-
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
- Abstract: OBJECTIVES: Although patients with grade I and II endometrioid endometrial adenocarcinoma (EEA) are considered with good prognosis, among them 15%–25% died in 5 years. It is still unknown whether integrating estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR) into clinical risk stratification can help select high-risk patients with grade I–II EEA. This study was to investigate the prognostic value of ER and PR double negativity (ER/PR loss) in grade I–II EEA, and the association between ER/PR loss and The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) classification. METHODS: ER and PR were assessed by immunohistochemistry on hysterectomy specimens of 903 patients with grade I–II EEA. ER and PR negativity were determined when < 1% tumor nuclei were stained. Gene expression data were obtained from the TCGA research network. RESULTS: Compared with ER or PR positive patients (n=868), patients with ER/PR loss (n=35) had deeper myometrial infiltration (p=0.012), severer FIGO stage (p=0.004), and higher rate of pelvic lymph node metastasis (p=0.020). In univariate analysis, ER/PR loss correlated with a shorter progression-free survival (PFS; hazard ratio [HR]=5.25; 95% confidence interval [CI]=2.21–12.52) and overall survival (OS; HR=7.59; 95% CI=2.55–22.60). In multivariate analysis, ER/PR loss independently predicted poor PFS (HR=3.77; 95% CI=1.60–10.14) and OS (HR=5.56; 95% CI=1.37–22.55) for all patients, and poor PFS for patients in stage IA (n=695; HR=5.54; 95% CI=1.28–23.89) and stage II–IV (n=129; HR=5.77; 95% CI=1.57–21.27). No association was found between ER/PR loss and TCGA classification. CONCLUSION: Integrating ER/PR evaluation into clinical risk stratification may improve prognosis for grade I–II EEA patients.
