Differential impact of clinicopathological risk factors within the 2 largest ProMisE molecular subgroups of endometrial carcinoma.

Abstract

ObjectiveTo assess whether the prognostic impact of conventional risk factors and ancillary biomarkers differs across the 2 largest ProMisE molecular subgroups of endometrial carcinoma (EC).MethodsDirect sequencing of POLE exonuclease domain hot spots and immunohistochemistry for MLH1, PMS2, MSH2, MSH6 and p53 were performed on 745 unselected endometrioid ECs to identify mismatch repair deficient (MMR-D, n = 264) and no specific molecular profile (NSMP, n = 206) ECs. Molecular group-specific survival analyses and interaction analyses were performed to determine the prognostic relevance of clinicopathological factors and various biomarkers (L1 cell adhesion molecule, estrogen and progesterone receptor, beta-catenin, p16, E-cadherin, KRAS) within the subgroups.ResultsMolecular subgroup did not have an independent effect on disease-specific survival after adjustment for conventional risk factors (P = 0.101). High grade (G3) and p16 hyperexpression remained significant predictors of survival in NSMP. Stage II-IV, ≥50% myometrial invasion, lymphovascular space invasion and loss of E-cadherin were independent predictors in the MMR-D group. In the interaction analysis, molecular subclass significantly modified the prognostic effect of high grade and p16 hyperexpression, which showed a stronger negative effect on survival in NSMP as compared to MMR-D (P for interaction = 0.016 for grade and 0.033 for p16).ConclusionsGrade of differentiation and p16 hyperexpression appear to have a stronger prognostic impact in NSMP as compared to MMR-D EC. While these results need to be confirmed in a larger study population, they indicate that differential impact of risk factors needs to be taken into account when developing new molecular class-integrated risk stratification algorithms for EC.