Microsatellite instability (MSI) and p16/p53 protein status in different subtypes of endometrial carcinoma: with emphasis on tumor aggressiveness

Year 2023, , 338 - 341, 31.08.2023

Aysun Firat

https://doi.org/10.36516/jocass.1339847

Abstract

Objective: We investigated microsatellite instability (MSI) in endometrial cancer (EC) and correlated results with traditional markers (p16, p53, Ki-67) to predict tumor aggressiveness.
Materials and Methods: Records of patients admitted with EC between 2010 and 2022 were reviewed, and the widest immunohistochemical (IHC) panel including (1) estrogen or progesterone receptors (ER, PR), (2) mismatch repair (MMR) proteins (MLH1, PMS2, MSH2, MSH6), (3) Ki-67, (4) p16 and (5) p53 proteins were recorded. Chi square test was used for statistical analysis.
Results: Total of 44 female patients with pathology reports containing all five IHC panel markers were included. Mean age was 64.1±12.51 years. Type I EC was the most common pathology (72%). ER or PR positivity were very prominent in type I tumors in comparison with non-endometrioid (type II) tumors (84% vs 16%, respectively; p<0.05). MSI was also more pronounced in type I than that of type II (46% vs 16%, respectively; p<0.05), but p16 and p53 expressions were more significant in patients with type II tumors (p<0.05). Pathological stage (pTNM) was seen to be significantly more advanced in type II and un/dedifferentiated cancers (each, 44% vs 18% in type I, p<0.05), and most of the tumors in these subtypes expressed Ki-67>10% (p<0.05).
Conclusion: A wider IHC panel including all of MSI (MLH1, PMS2, MSH2, MSH6), ER, PR, p16, p53 and Ki-67 may help oncologic planning in patients with different subtypes of EC, since first three markers can be used for tumor differentiation and others indicate the necessity of aggressive treatment.

Keywords

Endometrial cancer, microsatellite instability, immunohistochemistry

Project Number

YOKTUR (ETİKKURUL ONAYI METOD KISMINDA BELİRTİLDİ)

References

• 1.Santoro A, Angelico G, Travaglino A, et al. New pathological and clinical in¬sights in endometrial cancer in view of the updated ESGO/ESTRO/ESP guide¬lines. Cancers (Basel). 2021; 13: 2623. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13112623
• 2.Stelloo E, Jansen AML, Osse EM, et al. Practical guidance for mismatch repair-deficiency testing in endometrial cancer. Ann Oncol. 2017; 28: 96-102. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdw542
• 3.Smith D, Stewart CJR, Clarke EM, et al. ER and PR expression and survival after endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2018; 148: 258-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2017.11.027
• 4.Okoye EI, Bruegl AS, Fellman B, et al. Defective DNA Mismatch repair influ¬ences expression of endometrial carcinoma biomarkers. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2016; 35: 8-15. https://doi.org/10.1097/PGP.0000000000000193
• 5.Lobo FD, Thomas E. Type II endometrial cancers: A case series. J Midlife Health. 2016; 7: 69-72. https://doi.org/10.4103/0976-7800.185335
• 6.Samarnthai N, Hall K, Yeh IT. Molecular profiling of endometrial malignan¬cies. Obstet Gynecol Int. 2010; 2010: 162363. https://doi.org/10.1155/2010/162363
• 7.Hashmi AA, Mudassir G, Hashmi RN, et al. Microsatellite instability in endo¬metrial carcinoma by immunohistochemistry, association with clinical and histopathologic parameters. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2019; 20: 2601-6. https://doi.org/10.31557/APJCP.2019.20.9.2601
• 8.Khalifa MA, Mannel RS, Haraway SD,. Expression of EGFR, HER-2/neu, P53, and PCNA in endometrioid, serous papillary, and clear cell endometrial ade¬nocarcinomas. Gynecol Oncol. 1994; 53: 84-92. https://doi.org/10.1006/gyno.1994.1092
• 9.Catasus L, D'Angelo E, Pons C, et al. Expression profiling of 22 genes involved in the PI3K-AKT pathway identifies two subgroups of high-grade endometrial carcinomas with different molecular alterations. Mod Pathol. 2010; 23: 694-702. https://doi.org/10.1038/modpathol.2010.44
• 10.Schultheis AM, Martelotto LG, De Filippo MR, et al. TP53 mutational spec¬trum in endometrioid and serous endometrial cancers. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2016; 35: 289-300. https://doi.org/10.1097/PGP.0000000000000243
• 11.Netzer IM, Kerner H, Litwin L, et al. Diagnostic implications of p16 expres¬sion in serous papillary endometrial cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2011; 21: 1441-5. https://doi.org/10.1097/IGC.0b013e31822eee04
• 12.Zhang Z, Gao P, Bao Z, et al. Clear cell carcinoma of the endometrium: Eval¬uation of prognostic parameters in 27 cases. Front Oncol. 2021; 11: 732782. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2021.732782
• 13.El-Saka AM, Zamzam YA. Could obesity be a Triggering factor for endome¬trial tubal metaplasia to be a precancerous lesion? J Obes 2020; 2020: 2825905. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/2825905
• 14.Ziemke P. p16/Ki-67 immunocytochemistry in gynecological cytology: Limitations in practice. Acta Cytol. 2017; 61: 230-6. https://doi.org/10.1159/000475979
• 15.Penault-Llorca F, Radosevic-Robin N. Ki67 assessment in breast cancer: an update. Pathology. 2017; 49: 166-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pathol.2016.11.006 16.Hashmi AA, Hashmi KA, Irfan M, et al. Ki67 index in intrinsic breast can¬cer subtypes and its association with prognostic parameters. BMC Res Notes. 2019; 12: 605. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-019-4653-x
• 17.Woelber L, Prieske K, Eulenburg C, et al. p53 and p16 expression profiles in vulvar cancer: a translational analysis by the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynäkologische Onkologie Chemo and Radiotherapy in Epithelial Vulvar Cancer study group. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021; 224: 595. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2020.12.1220
• 18.Nwachukwu CR, Harris JP, Chin A, et al. Prognostic significance of p16 expression and p53 expression in primary vaginal cancer. Int J Gynecol Pathol 2019; 38: 588-96. https://doi.org/10.1097/PGP.0000000000000568
• 19.Yildirim M, Müller von der Grün J, et al. Combined p16 and p53 expres-sion in cervical cancer of unknown primary and other prognostic parame¬ters : A single-center analysis. Strahlenther Onkol. 2017; 193: 305-14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00066-017-1102-4
• 20.Cowan RW, Maitra A. Genetic progression of pancreatic cancer. Cancer J. 2014; 20: 80-4. https://doi.org/10.1097/PPO.0000000000000011
• 21.Carcangiu ML, Radice P, Casalini P, et al. Lynch syndrome-related endo¬metrial carcinomas show a high frequency of nonendometrioid types and of high FIGO grade endometrioid types. Int J Surg Pathol. 2010; 18: 21-6. https://doi.org/10.1177/1066896909332117
• 22.Bonadona V, Bonaiti B, Olschwang S, et al. French Cancer Genetics Net¬work. Cancer risks associated with germline mutations in MLH1, MSH2, and MSH6 genes in Lynch syndrome. JAMA. 2011; 305: 2304-10. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2011.743