4.1 Characteristics of molecular classification of EC and AEH patients receiving FST
In recent years, molecular classification of EC has been carried out in young patients. Britton et al. used the proactive molecular risk classifier for endometrial cancer (ProMisE) to retrospectively analyze 257 young patients with EC.8 Results showed there were 48 cases (19%) of MMR deficiency (dMMR) type, 34 cases (13%) of POLEmut type, 164 cases (64%) of p53 wild type and 11 cases (4%) of p53 mutant type.8 Another study for patients with low-grade endometrioid cancer, showed that most of the patients were p53 wild type (60%), dMMR type (29%), and a few were POLEmut type (6%) and p53 mutant type (5%).3 As most of the young patients receiving FST are low-grade endometrioid cancer, most of them are CNL subgroup, which is consistent with the results of this study. However, patients with CNL showed different treatment responses to FST. It is necessary to combine molecular features with histopathological features for further stratification, so as to predict the real low-risk patients who can benefit from progesterone therapy.
4.2 Correlation between molecular classification and clinicopathological characteristics
There seems to be a correlation between molecular classifications and clinicopathological characteristics. In consistent with our finding, patients with CNL subgroup are the youngest and have the highest BMI, while dMMR and CNH subgroups relate with advanced stage (stage III∼IV), a high risk and chemotherapy.8 This may be attributed to that most of the patients with CNL subgroup often combined with metabolic syndrome such as obesity and diabetes and tumorigenesis is usually estrogen-dependent. Due to related with hyperstimulation of estrogen, it is reasonable to presume that patients with CNL may benefit most from progesterone therapy. Britton's study also showed that obese patients of p53 wild type and of POLEmut type had better oncologic prognosis.8
In this study, the seven patients with MSI-H subgroup showed loss of expression of MSH2/MSH6 in 4 cases and loss of MLH1/PMS2 in 3 cases, which was consistent with literature.9 MSI-H subgroup was considered as moderate prognosis, but it is usually associated with adverse pathological factors in young patients. This study showed that compared with the CNL subgroup, patients with MSI-H had lower BMI, more with family history of tumor and higher expression level of Ki67. Literature also shows that patients with MSI-H type usually presents with lower BMI,10 lower origin of uterine cavity, higher grade, and lower expression of ER and PR than patients with MMR-proficient.11 Tumors usually show the characteristics of MSI, including lymphocyte infiltration, undifferentiated or dedifferentiated pathological types.9 The above adverse pathological factors may be the reason for the poor response to progesterone therapy in patients with MSI-H subgroup.
4.3 Influence of different molecular subgroups on the efficacy of FST
MSI-H subgroup takes 19% of young EC patients. We found none of the 7 patients with MSI-H subgroup got CR within 6 months' treatment. Survival analysis showed that these patients needed longer treatment time to CR than the CNL subgroup. Patients with MSI-H showed a poor response to FST, which was consistent with literature.9,12 A retrospective analysis by Zakhour et al.13 showed that for the 84 patients with EC and AEH who received FST, 6 patients (7%) were dMMR patients, and the CR rate was significantly lower than that of non-dMMR patients (0 vs. 53%; P = 0.028). Recently, a retrospective study from Korea showed that the response rate to progesterone therapy in patients with dMMR was significantly lower than that in patients with p53 wild type.14 Burleigh et al. retrospectively analyzed 56 patients under 40 years old, 9 (16%) of them had dMMR who had significantly poorer total survival (P = 0.028) and relapse-free survival (P = 0.042).15 Based on the above adverse pathological risk factors, poor progesterone response, poor prognosis, and the increased risk of epithelial ovarian cancer in patients with Lynch syndrome, we suggest that EC or AEH patients with MSI-H subgroup are not suitable for FST. If the patient insists on fertility preserving, the risk of treatment failure should be thoroughly informed and closely monitor taken during treatment.
Patients with CNL subgroup usually have a high expression of ER and PR, which is considered to be an independent risk factor for the prognosis of EC. However, not all patients of this type have a good response to progesterone. In this study, the 6 month CR rate of CNL patients was only 40.6%. Since most of the patients treated with FST are CNL subgroups. It is necessary to further stratify this subgroup to precisely predict treatment response. Some studies have shown that ProMisE molecular classification can be further stratified by combining more biomarkers. For patients with CNL subgroup, mutation of c-terminal cyclin D1 (CCND1), mutation of CTNNB1 gene, amplification of 1q32.1, overexpression of L1 cell adhesion molecule (L1CAM), loss of ER and PR expression and high DNA damage are all identified as markers associated with poor prognosis,16–20 which indicates that it is possible to make further molecular stratification for the CNL subgroup. Another study combined molecular typing with clinicopathological features which might be a more detailed stratification for EC patients. A total of 614 patients were divided into three groups: patients with substantial lymphovascular space invasion, p53-mutant, and/or >10% L1CAM are defined as group of unfavorable prognosis (15%), patients with POLEmut, no specific molecular profile (NSMP) being microsatellite stable, and CTNNB1 wild-type are defined as favorable prognosis (50%), while patients with MSI or CTNNB1-mutant are defined as intermediate prognosis (35%).21 This stratification method may be more effective in selecting candidates of EC patients for fertility preserving.
Patients with POLEmut have the best oncologic prognosis and may not be affected by adjuvant therapy22 which suggests this group may benefit from conservative treatment. Among the 4 POLEmut patients in this study, one EC patient with intraperitoneal implantation metastasis achieved CR after a regimen of chemotherapy plus hormone therapy and gave live birth, but its long-term prognosis still needs further follow-up. For patients with POLEmut, whether the indications of FST can be expanded is worth further study.
On the contrary, patients with CNH subgroup have the worst prognosis with a high risk of recurrence and total survival, and is not supposed to be treated conservatively.23 However, two patients with CNH subgroup in this study received FST with GnRHa plus LNG-IUS regimen and oral MPA regimen, respectively, and both of them achieve CR, one of them got pregnancy. Therefore, for patients with CNH subgroup, FST might not be the contraindication. But only if they have a high compliance and follow-up condition, could the fertility-preserving treatment be carefully carried out.
This was the first report of molecular classification among EC and AEH patients receiving FST in China. While this study used the TCGA strategy for molecular classification and the method of next generation sequencing is inconvenient in application. In the future, an alternative way like PromisE by testing mutation of POLE gene combined with immunohistochemistry of MMR/p53 protein might be cost-effective and easy popularization. Second, risk factors for treatment response among the CNL patients need to be further studied. Furthermore, there were limited cases for the other three molecular subgroups other than the CNL subgroup. And the findings in this study still needs large-sample research to confirm.