Emanuele Perrone, Ilaria Capasso, Diana Giannarelli, Rita Trozzi, Luigi Congedo, Elisa Ervas, Vincenzo Tarantino, Giovanni Esposito, Luca Palmieri, Arianna Guaita, Anne-Sophie van Rompuy, Giulia Scaglione, Gian Franco Zannoni, Giovanni Scambia, Frédéric Amant, Francesco Fanfani
{"title":"少即是多?在子宫内膜癌分子分类中比较基因组剖析和免疫组化模型:多中心、回顾性、倾向匹配生存分析。","authors":"Emanuele Perrone, Ilaria Capasso, Diana Giannarelli, Rita Trozzi, Luigi Congedo, Elisa Ervas, Vincenzo Tarantino, Giovanni Esposito, Luca Palmieri, Arianna Guaita, Anne-Sophie van Rompuy, Giulia Scaglione, Gian Franco Zannoni, Giovanni Scambia, Frédéric Amant, Francesco Fanfani","doi":"10.1016/j.ygyno.2024.10.010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":12853,"journal":{"name":"Gynecologic oncology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Less is more? Comparison between genomic profiling and immunohistochemistry-based models in endometrial cancer molecular classification: A multicenter, retrospective, propensity-matched survival analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Emanuele Perrone, Ilaria Capasso, Diana Giannarelli, Rita Trozzi, Luigi Congedo, Elisa Ervas, Vincenzo Tarantino, Giovanni Esposito, Luca Palmieri, Arianna Guaita, Anne-Sophie van Rompuy, Giulia Scaglione, Gian Franco Zannoni, Giovanni Scambia, Frédéric Amant, Francesco Fanfani\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ygyno.2024.10.010\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12853,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Gynecologic oncology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Gynecologic oncology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2024.10.010\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gynecologic oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2024.10.010","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Less is more? Comparison between genomic profiling and immunohistochemistry-based models in endometrial cancer molecular classification: A multicenter, retrospective, propensity-matched survival analysis.
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.
期刊介绍:
Gynecologic Oncology, an international journal, is devoted to the publication of clinical and investigative articles that concern tumors of the female reproductive tract. Investigations relating to the etiology, diagnosis, and treatment of female cancers, as well as research from any of the disciplines related to this field of interest, are published.
Research Areas Include:
• Cell and molecular biology
• Chemotherapy
• Cytology
• Endocrinology
• Epidemiology
• Genetics
• Gynecologic surgery
• Immunology
• Pathology
• Radiotherapy