基于 DNA 的子宫内膜癌分子分类器的单一测试验证和临床表现。

IF 4.1 2区 医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY International Journal of Gynecological Cancer Pub Date : 2024-10-26 DOI:10.1136/ijgc-2024-005916
Amy Jamieson, Marcel Grube, Felix Kommoss, Amy Lum, Samuel Leung, Derek Chiu, Gabriel Henderson, Florian Heitz, Sabine Heublein, A G Zeimet, Annette Hasenburg, Joachim Diebold, Christina Walter, Annette Staebler, Jerian Reynolds, Anna Lapuk, Melissa K McConechy, David G Huntsman, Blake Gilks, Stefan Kommoss, Jessica N McAlpine
{"title":"基于 DNA 的子宫内膜癌分子分类器的单一测试验证和临床表现。","authors":"Amy Jamieson, Marcel Grube, Felix Kommoss, Amy Lum, Samuel Leung, Derek Chiu, Gabriel Henderson, Florian Heitz, Sabine Heublein, A G Zeimet, Annette Hasenburg, Joachim Diebold, Christina Walter, Annette Staebler, Jerian Reynolds, Anna Lapuk, Melissa K McConechy, David G Huntsman, Blake Gilks, Stefan Kommoss, Jessica N McAlpine","doi":"10.1136/ijgc-2024-005916","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We have previously shown that DNA based, single test molecular classification by next generation sequencing (NGS) (Proactive Molecular risk classifier for Endometrial cancer (ProMisE) NGS) is highly concordant with the original ProMisE classifier and maintains prognostic value in endometrial cancer. Our aim was to validate ProMisE NGS in an independent cohort and assess the performance of ProMisE NGS in real world clinical practice to address if there were any practical challenges or learning points for implementation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We evaluated DNA extracted from an external research cohort of 211 endometrial cancer cases diagnosed in 2016 from Germany, Switzerland, and Austria, across seven European centers, comparing standard molecular classification (NGS for <i>POLE</i> status, immunohistochemistry for mismatch repair and p53) with ProMisE NGS (NGS for <i>POLE</i> and <i>TP53,</i> microsatellite instability assay) for concordance metrics and Kaplan-Meier survival statistics across molecular subtypes. In parallel, we assessed all patients who had undergone a new NGS based molecular classification test (n=334) comparing molecular subtype assignment with the original ProMisE classifier.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 545 endometrial cancers were compared. Prognostic differences in progression free, disease specific, and overall survival between the four molecular subtypes were observed for the NGS classifier, recapitulating the survival curves of original ProMisE. In 28 of 545 (5%) discordant cases (8/211 (4%) in the validation set, 20/334 (6%) in the real world cohort), molecular subtype was able to be definitively assigned in all, based on review of the histopathological features and/or additional immunohistochemistry. DNA based molecular classification identified twice as many 'multiple classifier' endometrial cancers; 37 of 545 (7%) compared with 20 of 545 (4%) with original ProMisE.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>External validation confirmed that single test, DNA based molecular classification was highly concordant (95%) with original ProMisE classification, with prognostic value maintained, representing an acceptable alternative for clinical practice. Careful consideration of reasons for discordance and knowledge of how to correctly assign multiple classifier endometrial cancers is imperative for implementation.</p>","PeriodicalId":14097,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Gynecological Cancer","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Validation and clinical performance of a single test, DNA based endometrial cancer molecular classifier.\",\"authors\":\"Amy Jamieson, Marcel Grube, Felix Kommoss, Amy Lum, Samuel Leung, Derek Chiu, Gabriel Henderson, Florian Heitz, Sabine Heublein, A G Zeimet, Annette Hasenburg, Joachim Diebold, Christina Walter, Annette Staebler, Jerian Reynolds, Anna Lapuk, Melissa K McConechy, David G Huntsman, Blake Gilks, Stefan Kommoss, Jessica N McAlpine\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/ijgc-2024-005916\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We have previously shown that DNA based, single test molecular classification by next generation sequencing (NGS) (Proactive Molecular risk classifier for Endometrial cancer (ProMisE) NGS) is highly concordant with the original ProMisE classifier and maintains prognostic value in endometrial cancer. Our aim was to validate ProMisE NGS in an independent cohort and assess the performance of ProMisE NGS in real world clinical practice to address if there were any practical challenges or learning points for implementation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We evaluated DNA extracted from an external research cohort of 211 endometrial cancer cases diagnosed in 2016 from Germany, Switzerland, and Austria, across seven European centers, comparing standard molecular classification (NGS for <i>POLE</i> status, immunohistochemistry for mismatch repair and p53) with ProMisE NGS (NGS for <i>POLE</i> and <i>TP53,</i> microsatellite instability assay) for concordance metrics and Kaplan-Meier survival statistics across molecular subtypes. In parallel, we assessed all patients who had undergone a new NGS based molecular classification test (n=334) comparing molecular subtype assignment with the original ProMisE classifier.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 545 endometrial cancers were compared. Prognostic differences in progression free, disease specific, and overall survival between the four molecular subtypes were observed for the NGS classifier, recapitulating the survival curves of original ProMisE. In 28 of 545 (5%) discordant cases (8/211 (4%) in the validation set, 20/334 (6%) in the real world cohort), molecular subtype was able to be definitively assigned in all, based on review of the histopathological features and/or additional immunohistochemistry. DNA based molecular classification identified twice as many 'multiple classifier' endometrial cancers; 37 of 545 (7%) compared with 20 of 545 (4%) with original ProMisE.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>External validation confirmed that single test, DNA based molecular classification was highly concordant (95%) with original ProMisE classification, with prognostic value maintained, representing an acceptable alternative for clinical practice. Careful consideration of reasons for discordance and knowledge of how to correctly assign multiple classifier endometrial cancers is imperative for implementation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14097,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Gynecological Cancer\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Gynecological Cancer\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/ijgc-2024-005916\",\"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":"International Journal of Gynecological Cancer","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/ijgc-2024-005916","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:我们之前已经证明,通过下一代测序(NGS)进行的基于 DNA 的单次测试分子分类(子宫内膜癌主动分子风险分类器(ProMisE)NGS)与原始 ProMisE 分类器高度一致,并保持了子宫内膜癌的预后价值。我们的目的是在一个独立队列中验证 ProMisE NGS,并评估 ProMisE NGS 在现实世界临床实践中的表现,以解决实施过程中是否存在任何实际挑战或学习点:我们评估了从外部研究队列中提取的 DNA,该队列包含 2016 年诊断的 211 例子宫内膜癌病例,分别来自德国、瑞士和奥地利的 7 个欧洲中心,比较了标准分子分类(NGS 检测 POLE 状态、免疫组化检测错配修复和 p53)与 ProMisE NGS(NGS 检测 POLE 和 TP53、微卫星不稳定性检测)在不同分子亚型中的一致性指标和 Kaplan-Meier 生存统计。同时,我们对所有接受过基于 NGS 的新分子分类测试的患者(334 人)进行了评估,将分子亚型分配与原始 ProMisE 分类器进行比较:结果:共比较了 545 例子宫内膜癌。在 545 例不一致病例中,有 28 例(5%)(验证集中为 8/211 例(4%),真实世界队列中为 20/334 例(6%))可根据组织病理学特征和/或其他免疫组化检查确定分子亚型。基于DNA的分子分类鉴定出的 "多重分类器 "子宫内膜癌数量是原ProMisE的两倍:545例中有37例(7%),而545例中有20例(4%):外部验证证实,基于DNA的单一检测分子分类与原始ProMisE分类高度一致(95%),且预后价值保持不变,是临床实践中可接受的替代方法。在实施过程中,必须仔细考虑不一致的原因,并了解如何正确分配多个分类器的子宫内膜癌。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Validation and clinical performance of a single test, DNA based endometrial cancer molecular classifier.

Objectives: We have previously shown that DNA based, single test molecular classification by next generation sequencing (NGS) (Proactive Molecular risk classifier for Endometrial cancer (ProMisE) NGS) is highly concordant with the original ProMisE classifier and maintains prognostic value in endometrial cancer. Our aim was to validate ProMisE NGS in an independent cohort and assess the performance of ProMisE NGS in real world clinical practice to address if there were any practical challenges or learning points for implementation.

Methods: We evaluated DNA extracted from an external research cohort of 211 endometrial cancer cases diagnosed in 2016 from Germany, Switzerland, and Austria, across seven European centers, comparing standard molecular classification (NGS for POLE status, immunohistochemistry for mismatch repair and p53) with ProMisE NGS (NGS for POLE and TP53, microsatellite instability assay) for concordance metrics and Kaplan-Meier survival statistics across molecular subtypes. In parallel, we assessed all patients who had undergone a new NGS based molecular classification test (n=334) comparing molecular subtype assignment with the original ProMisE classifier.

Results: A total of 545 endometrial cancers were compared. Prognostic differences in progression free, disease specific, and overall survival between the four molecular subtypes were observed for the NGS classifier, recapitulating the survival curves of original ProMisE. In 28 of 545 (5%) discordant cases (8/211 (4%) in the validation set, 20/334 (6%) in the real world cohort), molecular subtype was able to be definitively assigned in all, based on review of the histopathological features and/or additional immunohistochemistry. DNA based molecular classification identified twice as many 'multiple classifier' endometrial cancers; 37 of 545 (7%) compared with 20 of 545 (4%) with original ProMisE.

Conclusion: External validation confirmed that single test, DNA based molecular classification was highly concordant (95%) with original ProMisE classification, with prognostic value maintained, representing an acceptable alternative for clinical practice. Careful consideration of reasons for discordance and knowledge of how to correctly assign multiple classifier endometrial cancers is imperative for implementation.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
10.40%
发文量
280
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Gynecological Cancer, the official journal of the International Gynecologic Cancer Society and the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology, is the primary educational and informational publication for topics relevant to detection, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of gynecologic malignancies. IJGC emphasizes a multidisciplinary approach, and includes original research, reviews, and video articles. The audience consists of gynecologists, medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, radiologists, pathologists, and research scientists with a special interest in gynecological oncology.
期刊最新文献
The prognostic value of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in vulvovaginal melanoma. First robotic radical trachelectomy for cervical cancer using the Hugo RAS platform. Secondary cytoreductive surgery for recurrent endometrial cancer: can we predict the future? Mixed neuroendocrine and endometrioid carcinoma of the endometrium: a rare aggressive malignancy. Diaphragmatic and pericardiac ovarian cancer recurrence removal and mesh reconstruction.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1