Jamieson Amy, Huvila Jutta, Leung Samuel, Chiu Derek, Thompson Emily F, Lum Amy, Kinloch Mary, Helpman Limor, Salvador Shannon, Vicus Danielle, Kean Sarah, Samouelian Vanessa, Grondin Katherine, Irving Julie, Offman Saul, Parra-Herran Carlos, Lau Susie, Scott Stephanie, Plante Marie, McConechy Melissa K, Huntsman David G, Talhouk Aline, Kommoss Stefan, Gilks C Blake, McAlpine Jessica N
Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Department of Pathology, University of Turku, Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland.
Gynecol Oncol. 2023 Mar;170:282-289. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2023.01.025. Epub 2023 Feb 6.
Recent data support the predictive implications of molecular subtype assignment in endometrial cancer (EC). Our objective was to retrospectively assess clinical outcomes according to adjuvant treatment received within EC molecular subtypes.
Clinical outcomes (disease-specific and progression-free survival DSS/PFS) of EC patients from a single institution and population-based cohorts that had undergone molecular classification were assessed with respect to adjuvant therapy received and 2016 ESMO risk group.
2472 ECs were assessed; 184 (7.4%) POLEmut, 638 (25.8%) MMRd, 1223 (49.5%) NSMP and 427 (17.3%) p53abn. N = 774 (34.6%) of the cohort were ESMO 2016 high risk and 109 (4.8%) were advanced or metastatic. In patients with MMRd EC, assessed across and within stage, there was no observed benefit in DSS or PFS with the addition of chemotherapy +/- radiation compared to radiation alone in ESMO high risk (p = 0.694) or ESMO high, advanced, metastatic risk groups combined (p = 0.852). In patients with p53abn EC, adjuvant chemotherapy given with radiation was associated with significantly longer DSS compared to radiation alone in ESMO high risk (p = 0.007) and ESMO high, advanced and metastatic risk groups combined (p = 0.015), even when restricted to stage I disease (p < 0.001) and when compared in serous vs. non-serous histotypes (p = 0.009).
Adjuvant chemotherapy is associated with more favorable outcomes for patients with p53abn EC, including stage I disease and non-serous histotypes, but does not appear to add benefit within MMRd ECs for any stage of disease, consistent with PORTEC-3 molecular subanalysis. Prospective trials, assessing treatment efficacy within molecular subtype are needed, however these 'real-world' data should be considered when discussing adjuvant treatment with patients.
近期数据支持分子亚型分类对子宫内膜癌(EC)的预测意义。我们的目的是根据EC分子亚型接受的辅助治疗方法,回顾性评估临床结局。
评估了来自单一机构以及基于人群队列且已进行分子分类的EC患者的临床结局(疾病特异性生存和无进展生存,即DSS/PFS),这些结局与接受的辅助治疗以及2016年欧洲肿瘤内科学会(ESMO)风险组相关。
共评估了2472例EC;184例(7.4%)为POLE突变型,638例(25.8%)为错配修复缺陷型(MMRd),1223例(49.5%)为非特异性分子谱(NSMP),427例(17.3%)为p53异常型。队列中有774例(34.6%)为ESMO 2016高风险,109例(4.8%)为晚期或转移性。在MMRd EC患者中,无论分期如何,在ESMO高风险组(p = 0.694)或ESMO高风险、晚期、转移性风险组合并组(p = 总 0.852)中,与单纯放疗相比,加用化疗±放疗在DSS或PFS方面未观察到益处。在p53abn EC患者中,在ESMO高风险组(p = 0.007)以及ESMO高风险、晚期和转移性风险组合并组(p = 0.015)中,与单纯放疗相比,放疗联合辅助化疗与显著更长的DSS相关,即使仅限于I期疾病(p < 0.001),以及在浆液性与非浆液性组织学类型之间比较时(p = 0.0总 9)。
辅助化疗与p53abn EC患者更有利的结局相关,包括I期疾病和非浆液性组织学类型,但在MMRd EC的任何疾病分期中似乎均未增加益处,这与PORTEC-3分子亚分析一致。然而,在与患者讨论辅助治疗时应考虑这些“真实世界”的数据,同时需要进行前瞻性试验来评估分子亚型内的治疗疗效。