TY - JOUR
T1 - Microsatellite Instability-High Endometrial Cancers with MLH1 Promoter Hypermethylation Have Distinct Molecular and Clinical Profiles
AU - Manning-Geist, Beryl L.
AU - Liu, Ying L.
AU - Devereaux, Kelly A.
AU - Da Cruz Paula, Arnaud
AU - Zhou, Qin C.
AU - Ma, Weining
AU - Selenica, Pier
AU - Ceyhan-Birsoy, Ozge
AU - Moukarzel, Lea A.
AU - Hoang, Timothy
AU - Gordhandas, Sushmita
AU - Rubinstein, Maria M.
AU - Friedman, Claire F.
AU - Aghajanian, Carol
AU - Abu-Rustum, Nadeem R.
AU - Stadler, Zsofia K.
AU - Reis-Filho, Jorge S.
AU - Iasonos, Alexia
AU - Zamarin, Dmitriy
AU - Ellenson, Lora H.
AU - Lakhman, Yulia
AU - Mandelker, Diana L.
AU - Weigelt, Britta
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 American Association for Cancer Research.
PY - 2022/10/1
Y1 - 2022/10/1
N2 - Purpose: Microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) endometrial carcinomas are underpinned by distinct mechanisms of DNA mismatch repair deficiency (MMR-D). We sought to characterize the clinical and genetic features of MSI-H endometrial cancers harboring germline or somatic mutations in MMR genes or MLH1 promoter hypermethylation (MLH1ph). Experimental Design: Of > 1,100 patientswith endometrial cancer that underwent clinical tumor-normal sequencing, 184 had MSI-H endometrial cancers due to somatic MMR mutations or MLH1ph, or harbored pathogenicgermlineMMRmutations.Clinicopathologic features, mutational landscape, and tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte (TIL) scores were compared among MMR-D groups using nonparametric tests. Log-rank tests were used for categorical associations; Kaplan- Meier method and Wald test based on Cox proportional hazards models were employed for continuous variables and survival analyses. Results: Compared with patients with germline (n = 25) and somatic (n = 39) mutations, patients with MLH1ph endometrial cancers (n = 120) were older (P < 0.001), more obese (P = 0.001) and had more advanced disease at diagnosis (P = 0.025). MLH1ph endometrial cancers were enriched for JAK1 somatic mutations as opposed to germline MMR-D endometrial cancers which showed enrichment for pathogenic ERBB2 mutations. MLH1ph endometrial cancers exhibited lower tumor mutational burden and TIL scores compared with endometrial cancers harboring germline or somatic MMR mutations (P < 0.01). MLH1ph endometrial cancer patients had shorter progressionfree survival (PFS) on univariate analysis, but in multivariable models, stage at diagnosis remained the only predictor of survival. For stage I/II endometrial cancer, two-year PFS was inferior for patients with MLH1ph endometrial cancers compared with germline and somatic MMR groups (70% vs. 100%, respectively). Conclusions: MLH1ph endometrial cancers likely constitute a distinct clinicopathologic entity compared with germline and somatic MMR-D ECs with potential treatment implications.
AB - Purpose: Microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) endometrial carcinomas are underpinned by distinct mechanisms of DNA mismatch repair deficiency (MMR-D). We sought to characterize the clinical and genetic features of MSI-H endometrial cancers harboring germline or somatic mutations in MMR genes or MLH1 promoter hypermethylation (MLH1ph). Experimental Design: Of > 1,100 patientswith endometrial cancer that underwent clinical tumor-normal sequencing, 184 had MSI-H endometrial cancers due to somatic MMR mutations or MLH1ph, or harbored pathogenicgermlineMMRmutations.Clinicopathologic features, mutational landscape, and tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte (TIL) scores were compared among MMR-D groups using nonparametric tests. Log-rank tests were used for categorical associations; Kaplan- Meier method and Wald test based on Cox proportional hazards models were employed for continuous variables and survival analyses. Results: Compared with patients with germline (n = 25) and somatic (n = 39) mutations, patients with MLH1ph endometrial cancers (n = 120) were older (P < 0.001), more obese (P = 0.001) and had more advanced disease at diagnosis (P = 0.025). MLH1ph endometrial cancers were enriched for JAK1 somatic mutations as opposed to germline MMR-D endometrial cancers which showed enrichment for pathogenic ERBB2 mutations. MLH1ph endometrial cancers exhibited lower tumor mutational burden and TIL scores compared with endometrial cancers harboring germline or somatic MMR mutations (P < 0.01). MLH1ph endometrial cancer patients had shorter progressionfree survival (PFS) on univariate analysis, but in multivariable models, stage at diagnosis remained the only predictor of survival. For stage I/II endometrial cancer, two-year PFS was inferior for patients with MLH1ph endometrial cancers compared with germline and somatic MMR groups (70% vs. 100%, respectively). Conclusions: MLH1ph endometrial cancers likely constitute a distinct clinicopathologic entity compared with germline and somatic MMR-D ECs with potential treatment implications.
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85139535876
U2 - 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-22-0713
DO - 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-22-0713
M3 - Article
C2 - 35849120
AN - SCOPUS:85139535876
SN - 1078-0432
VL - 28
SP - 4302
EP - 4311
JO - Clinical Cancer Research
JF - Clinical Cancer Research
IS - 19
ER -