Suppr超能文献

分子分类时代Ⅰ级 3 期子宫内膜样腺癌的风险分层。

Risk Stratification of Stage I Grade 3 Endometrioid Endometrial Carcinoma in the Era of Molecular Classification.

机构信息

Gynecology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.

Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.

出版信息

JCO Precis Oncol. 2022 Oct;6:e2200194. doi: 10.1200/PO.22.00194.

Abstract

PURPOSE

The role of adjuvant therapy in stage I grade 3 endometrioid endometrial carcinoma (EEC) is debatable. We sought to define the agreement between Post Operative Radiation Therapy in Endometrial Carcinoma 1 (PORTEC-1) high-intermediate risk (HIR) and Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG)-99 HIR criteria, assess their concordance with The Cancer Genome Atlas molecular subtypes, and evaluate oncologic outcomes in this population.

METHODS

We identified patients with stage I grade 3 EECs who underwent surgical staging at our institution from January 2014 to January 2020. Patients were stratified into PORTEC-1 HIR, GOG-99 HIR, and The Cancer Genome Atlas molecular subtypes. Adjuvant treatment, and progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were analyzed.

RESULTS

Seventy-five patients were included. The agreement between PORTEC-1 and GOG-99 HIR classification was 68% (95% CI, 56.2 to 78.3), with a kappa of 0.36 ( = .001). There was no agreement between PORTEC-1 or GOG-99 HIR classification and a dichotomized molecular classification (copy number-high [CN-H] other subtypes), with a kappa of 0.03 ( = .39) and -0.03 ( = .601), respectively. There was no difference in PFS between PORTEC-1 HIR and non-HIR (HR, 10.9; 95% CI, 0.28 to 4.21) or between GOG-99 HIR and non-HIR (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.32 to 4.6) stage I grade 3 EECs. Patients with CN-H compared with non-CN-H EEC had worse PFS (HR, 5.67; 95% CI, 1.73 to 18.63) and OS (HR, 5.05; 95% CI, 1.13 to 22.5).

CONCLUSION

In surgically staged patients with stage I grade 3 EEC, PORTEC-1 and GOG-99 HIR criteria were not prognostic and did not identify CN-H patients. Patients with CN-H EEC had worse PFS and OS compared with those with other molecular subtypes. The integration of the molecular classification with recognized clinicopathologic factors may identify patients with higher-risk stage I grade 3 EEC who benefit from additional therapy.

摘要

目的

辅助治疗在 I 期 G3 子宫内膜样腺癌(EEC)中的作用存在争议。我们旨在确定 POSTOPERATIVE RADIATION THERAPY IN ENDOMETRIAL CARCINOMA 1(PORTEC-1)高-中危(HIR)和妇科肿瘤学组(GOG)-99 HIR 标准之间的一致性,评估它们与癌症基因组图谱(TCGA)分子亚型的一致性,并评估该人群的肿瘤学结局。

方法

我们从 2014 年 1 月至 2020 年 1 月在我院接受手术分期的 I 期 G3 EEC 患者中确定了研究对象。患者分为 PORTEC-1 HIR、GOG-99 HIR 和 TCGA 分子亚型。分析辅助治疗和无进展生存期(PFS)、总生存期(OS)。

结果

共纳入 75 例患者。PORTEC-1 和 GOG-99 HIR 分类之间的一致性为 68%(95%CI,56.2 至 78.3),kappa 值为 0.36(=0.001)。PORTEC-1 或 GOG-99 HIR 分类与二分类分子分类(拷贝数高[CN-H]与其他亚型)之间没有一致性,kappa 值分别为 0.03(=0.39)和-0.03(=0.601)。PORTEC-1 HIR 与非 HIR 或 GOG-99 HIR 与非 HIR 期 I 级 G3 EEC 患者的 PFS 无差异(HR,10.9;95%CI,0.28 至 4.21)或(HR,1.22;95%CI,0.32 至 4.6)。与非 CN-H EEC 患者相比,CN-H EEC 患者的 PFS(HR,5.67;95%CI,1.73 至 18.63)和 OS(HR,5.05;95%CI,1.13 至 22.5)更差。

结论

在接受手术分期的 I 期 G3 EEC 患者中,PORTEC-1 和 GOG-99 HIR 标准无预后意义,不能识别 CN-H 患者。与其他分子亚型相比,CN-H EEC 患者的 PFS 和 OS 更差。将分子分类与公认的临床病理因素相结合,可能会识别出需要额外治疗的高危 I 期 G3 EEC 患者。

相似文献

本文引用的文献

1
Cancer statistics, 2022.癌症统计数据,2022 年。
CA Cancer J Clin. 2022 Jan;72(1):7-33. doi: 10.3322/caac.21708. Epub 2022 Jan 12.
2
Clinicopathologic and Genomic Analysis of -Mutated Endometrial Carcinomas.- 突变型子宫内膜癌的临床病理与基因组分析。
Clin Cancer Res. 2021 May 1;27(9):2613-2623. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-20-4436. Epub 2021 Feb 18.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验