These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: The prognostic significance of estrogen and progesterone receptors in grade I and II endometrioid endometrial adenocarcinoma: hormone receptors in risk stratification.
    Author: Guan J, Xie L, Luo X, Yang B, Zhang H, Zhu Q, Chen X.
    Journal: J Gynecol Oncol; 2019 Jan; 30(1):e13. PubMed ID: 30479097.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVES: Although patients with grade I and II endometrioid endometrial adenocarcinoma (EEA) are considered with good prognosis, among them 15%-25% died in 5 years. It is still unknown whether integrating estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR) into clinical risk stratification can help select high-risk patients with grade I-II EEA. This study was to investigate the prognostic value of ER and PR double negativity (ER/PR loss) in grade I-II EEA, and the association between ER/PR loss and The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) classification. METHODS: ER and PR were assessed by immunohistochemistry on hysterectomy specimens of 903 patients with grade I-II EEA. ER and PR negativity were determined when <1% tumor nuclei were stained. Gene expression data were obtained from the TCGA research network. RESULTS: Compared with ER or PR positive patients (n=868), patients with ER/PR loss (n=35) had deeper myometrial infiltration (p=0.012), severer FIGO stage (p=0.004), and higher rate of pelvic lymph node metastasis (p=0.020). In univariate analysis, ER/PR loss correlated with a shorter progression-free survival (PFS; hazard ratio [HR]=5.25; 95% confidence interval [CI]=2.21-12.52) and overall survival (OS; HR=7.59; 95% CI=2.55-22.60). In multivariate analysis, ER/PR loss independently predicted poor PFS (HR=3.77; 95% CI=1.60-10.14) and OS (HR=5.56; 95% CI=1.37-22.55) for all patients, and poor PFS for patients in stage IA (n=695; HR=5.54; 95% CI=1.28-23.89) and stage II-IV (n=129; HR=5.77; 95% CI=1.57-21.27). No association was found between ER/PR loss and TCGA classification. CONCLUSION: Integrating ER/PR evaluation into clinical risk stratification may improve prognosis for grade I-II EEA patients.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]