Search

Background: Genomic profiling-based model (GP-M) is the gold-standard for endometrial cancer (EC) molecular classification, but several issues related to the availability of genomic sequencing in low-income settings remain and health disparities in the management are increasing. This study aims to investigate the non-inferiority of the immunohistochemistry-alone model in classifying ECs compared to the standard genomic profiling-based model in terms of oncologic outcomes., Methods: All preoperative uterine-confined ECs undergoing surgical staging were retrospectively included. Patients classified by IHC-M were stratified into: MMR-proficient (MMRp), p53 wild type (p53wt) and estrogen receptor (ER) positive, 2) MMRp, p53wt and ER-negative, 3) MMRd, and 4) p53abn. A case-control comparison was performed between the IHC-M and GP-M cohorts. Then, a propensity-matched analysis was performed: ECs classified by IHC-M were matched in a 3:1 ratio with patients classified by GP-M., Results: 1587 patients with EC were included. The Kaplan-Meier survival curves for disease-free survival and overall survival demonstrated that the two models performed similarly in risk-stratifying the study population (p < 0.0001). Moreover, the AUC-ROC showed overlapping results: 0.77 (0.66-0.87) for IHC-M and 0.72 (0.63-0.81) for GP-M, indicating that both models were able to successfully identify patients at high-risk and low-risk of disease recurrence/progression., Conclusion: The IHC-M showed overlapping classification performance compared to the GP-M in terms of oncologic outcomes. This study may lay the basis to further investigate the real-life clinical impact of POLE sequencing in molecular classification and the potential stand-alone prognostic role of ER status for further allocation of EC patients into risk classes., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. The authors report no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Over recent years, there has been significant progress in the development of immunotherapeutic molecules designed to block the PD-1/PD-L1 axis. These molecules have demonstrated their ability to enhance the immune response by prompting T cells to identify and suppress neoplastic cells. PD-L1 is a type 1 transmembrane protein ligand expressed on T lymphocytes, B lymphocytes, and antigen-presenting cells and is considered a key inhibitory checkpoint involved in cancer immune regulation. PD-L1 immunohistochemical expression in gynecological malignancies is extremely variable based on tumor stage and molecular subtypes. As a result, a class of monoclonal antibodies targeting the PD-1 receptor and PD-L1, known as immune checkpoint inhibitors, has found successful application in clinical settings. In clinical practice, the standard method for identifying suitable candidates for immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy involves immunohistochemical assessment of PD-L1 expression in neoplastic tissues. The most commonly used PD-L1 assays in clinical trials are SP142, 28-8, 22C3, and SP263, each of which has been rigorously validated on specific platforms. Gynecologic cancers encompass a wide spectrum of malignancies originating from the ovaries, uterus, cervix, and vulva. These neoplasms have shown variable response to immunotherapy which appears to be influenced by genetic and protein expression profiles, including factors such as mismatch repair status, tumor mutational burden, and checkpoint ligand expression. In the present paper, an extensive review of PD-L1 expression in various gynecologic cancer types is discussed, providing a guide for their pathological assessment and reporting., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors have no financial or personal conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Ovarian endometrioid carcinoma (OEC) shares morphological and molecular features with endometrial endometrioid carcinoma (EEC). Several studies assessed the four TCGA groups of EEC, i.e. POLE-mutated (POLEmut), mismatch repair-deficient (MMRd), no specific molecular profile (NSMP) and p53-abnormal (p53abn), in OEC; however, it is unclear whether the TCGA groups have the same distribution and clinicopathological features between OEC and EEC., Objective: To assess the distribution and clinicopathological features of the TCGA groups in OEC., Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was carried out by searching 7 electronic databases from January 2013 to April 2021 for studies assessing the TCGA classification in OEC. Prevalence of each TCGA group in OEC and of FIGO grade 3 and stage>I was pooled using a random-effect model. Prevalence of TCGA groups was compared between OEC and EEC, extracting EEC data from a previous meta-analysis. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression survival analyses were performed for progression-free survival (PFS). A significant p-value<0.05 was adopted., Results: Four studies with 785 patients were included. The frequency of the TCGA groups in OEC vs EEC was: POLEmut = 5% vs 7.6% (p = 0.594); MMRd = 14.6% vs 29.2% (p < 0.001); p53abn = 14% vs 7.8% (p = 0.097); NSMP = 66.4% vs 55.4% (p = 0.002). The pooled prevalence of FIGO grade 3 was: POLEmut = 19.2%; MMRd = 18.3%; p53abn = 38.1%; NSMP = 14.5%. The pooled prevalence of FIGO stage >I was: POLEmut = 31.6%; MMRd = 42.8%; p53abn = 48.5%; NSMP = 24.6%. Two-, 5- and 10-year PFS was: POLEmut = 100%, 100%, and 100%; MMRd = 89.1%, 82.2% and 73.3%; p53abn = 61.7%, 50.2% and 39.6%; NSMP = 87.7%, 79.6% and 65.5%. The hazard ratio for disease progression (reference = NSMP) was: POLEmut = not estimable (no events); MMRd = 0.825 (p = 0.626); p53abn = 2.786 (p = 0.001)., Conclusion: The prognostic value of the TCGA groups was similar between OEC and EEC, despite the differences in the frequency and pathological features of each group., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors report no conflict of interest. No financial support was received for this study., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: In the ESGO/ESTRO/ESP guidelines for endometrial carcinoma management, the risk category of clear cell carcinoma (CCC) is not well defined. In fact, while p53-abnormal (p53abn) CCC are known to be aggressive, the prognosis of mismatch repair-deficient (MMRd) and p53-wild-type (p53wt) CCCs is less clear., Objective: To assess the prognostic value of the MMRd and p53wt groups in CCC through a systematic review and meta-analysis., Methods: Electronic databases were searched from their inception to February 2021. All studies reporting p53 expression, MMR proteins expression and survival outcomes in endometrial CCC (either pure or mixed) were included. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression survival analyses with hazard ratio (HR) for overall survival (OS) were performed by using the p53abn group as reference; a significant p-value<0.05 was adopted., Results: Six studies with 136 CCC (114 pure and 22 mixed) were included. Five-year OS was 95.7 ± 4.3% in the MMRd group, 48.4 ± 8.4% months in the p53wt group and 40.6 ± 10.4% in the p53abn group. The hazard of death was significantly lower in the MMRd group than in the p53abn group (HR = 0.062; p = 0.007), while it did not significantly differ between the p53wt and the p53abn group (HR = 0.673; p = 0.222). The POLEmut group could not be analyzed due to the absence of deaths. Similar results were observed in the pure CCC and mixed CCC subgroups., Conclusion: MMRd CCCs seem to have a favorable prognosis and might be lumped together with MMRd endometrioid carcinoma for management purpose. On the other hand, p53wt CCCs appear prognostically more similar to p53abn CCCs., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)