Molecular and Clinicopathologic Characterization of Mismatch Repair-Deficient Endometrial Carcinoma Not Related to MLH1 Promoter Hypermethylation.

Universal tumor screening in endometrial carcinoma (EC) is increasingly adopted to identify individuals at risk of Lynch syndrome (LS). These cases involve mismatch repair-deficient (MMRd) EC without MLH1 promoter hypermethylation (PHM). LS is confirmed through the identification of germline MMR pathogenic variants (PV). In cases where these are not detected, emerging evidence highlights the significance of double-somatic MMR gene alterations as a sporadic cause of MMRd, alongside POLE/POLD1 exonuclease domain (EDM) PV leading to secondary MMR PV. Our understanding of the incidence of different MMRd EC origins not related to MLH1-PHM, their associations with clinicopathologic characteristics, and the prognostic implications remains limited. In a combined analysis of the PORTEC-1, -2, and -3 trials (n = 1254), 84 MMRd EC not related to MLH1-PHM were identified that successfully underwent paired tumor-normal tissue next-generation sequencing of the MMR and POLE/POLD1 genes. Among these, 37% were LS associated (LS-MMRd EC), 38% were due to double-somatic hits (DS-MMRd EC), and 25% remained unexplained. LS-MMRd EC exhibited higher rates of MSH6 (52% vs 19%) or PMS2 loss (29% vs 3%) than DS-MMRd EC, and exclusively showed MMR-deficient gland foci. DS-MMRd EC had higher rates of combined MSH2/MSH6 loss (47% vs 16%), loss of >2 MMR proteins (16% vs 3%), and somatic POLE-EDM PV (25% vs 3%) than LS-MMRd EC. Clinicopathologic characteristics, including age at tumor onset and prognosis, did not differ among the various groups. Our study validates the use of paired tumor-normal next-generation sequencing to identify definitive sporadic causes in MMRd EC unrelated to MLH1-PHM. MMR immunohistochemistry and POLE-EDM mutation status can aid in the differentiation between LS-MMRd EC and DS-MMRd EC. These findings emphasize the need for integrating tumor sequencing into LS diagnostics, along with clear interpretation guidelines, to improve clinical management. Although not impacting prognosis, confirmation of DS-MMRd EC may release patients and relatives from burdensome LS surveillance.

Radiation Therapy Techniques and Treatment-Related Toxicity in the PORTEC-3 Trial: Comparison of 3-Dimensional Conformal Radiation Therapy Versus Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy.

PURPOSE: Radiation therapy techniques have developed from 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT) to intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), with better sparing of the surrounding normal tissues. The current analysis aimed to investigate whether IMRT, compared to 3DCRT, resulted in fewer adverse events (AEs) and patient-reported symptoms in the randomized PORTEC-3 trial for high-risk endometrial cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Data on AEs and patient-reported quality of life (QoL) of the PORTEC-3 trial were available for analysis. Physician-reported AEs were graded using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v3.0. QoL was assessed by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQC30, CX24, and OV28 questionnaires. Data were compared between 3DCRT and IMRT. A P value of ≤ .01 was considered statistically significant due to the risk of multiple testing. For QoL, combined scores 1 to 2 ("not at all" and "a little") versus 3 to 4 ("quite a bit" and "very much") were compared between the techniques. RESULTS: Of 658 evaluable patients, 559 received 3DCRT and 99 IMRT. Median follow-up was 74.6 months. During treatment no significant differences were observed, with a trend for more grade ≥3 AEs, mostly hematologic and gastrointestinal, after 3DCRT (37.7% vs 26.3%, P = .03). During follow-up, 15.4% (vs 4%) had grade ≥2 diarrhea, and 26.1% (vs 13.1%) had grade ≥2 hematologic AEs after 3DCRT (vs IMRT) (both P < .01). Among 574 (87%) patients evaluable for QoL, 494 received 3DCRT and 80 IMRT. During treatment, 37.5% (vs 28.6%) reported diarrhea after 3DCRT (vs IMRT) (P = .125); 22.1% (versus 10.0%) bowel urgency (P = 0039), and 18.2% and 8.6% abdominal cramps (P = .058). Other QoL scores showed no differences. CONCLUSIONS: IMRT resulted in fewer grade ≥3 AEs during treatment and significantly lower rates of grade ≥2 diarrhea and hematologic AEs during follow-up. Trends toward fewer patient-reported bowel urgency and abdominal cramps were observed after IMRT compared to 3DCRT.

Patients' and clinicians' preferences in adjuvant treatment for high-risk endometrial cancer: Implications for shared decision making.

BACKGROUND: Decision making regarding adjuvant therapy for high-risk endometrial cancer is complex. The aim of this study was to determine patients' and clinicians' minimally desired survival benefit to choose chemoradiotherapy over radiotherapy alone. Moreover, influencing factors and importance of positive and negative treatment effects (i.e. attribute) were investigated. METHODS: Patients with high-risk endometrial cancer treated with adjuvant pelvic radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy and multidisciplinary gynaecologic oncology clinicians completed a trade-off questionnaire based on PORTEC-3 trial data. RESULTS: In total, 171 patients and 63 clinicians completed the questionnaire. Median minimally desired benefit to make chemoradiotherapy worthwhile was significantly higher for patients versus clinicians (10% vs 5%, p = 0.02). Both patients and clinicians rated survival benefit most important during decision making, followed by long-term symptoms. Older patients (OR 0.92 [95%CI 0.87-0.97]; p = 0.003) with comorbidity (OR 0.34 [95% CI 0.12-0.89]; p = 0.035) had lower preference for chemoradiotherapy, while patients with better numeracy skills (OR 1.2 [95%CI 1.05-1.36], p = 0.011) and chemoradiotherapy history (OR 25.0 [95%CI 8.8-91.7]; p < 0.001) had higher preference for chemoradiotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: There is a considerable difference in minimally desired survival benefit of chemoradiotherapy in high-risk endometrial cancer among and between patients and clinicians. Overall, endometrial cancer patients needed higher benefits than clinicians before preferring chemoradiotherapy.

Prevalence and Prognosis of Lynch Syndrome and Sporadic Mismatch Repair Deficiency in Endometrial Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Standard screening of endometrial cancer (EC) for Lynch syndrome (LS) is gaining traction; however, the prognostic impact of an underlying hereditary etiology is unknown. We established the prevalence, prognosis, and subsequent primary cancer incidence of patients with LS-associated EC in relation to sporadic mismatch repair deficient (MMRd)-EC in the large combined Post Operative Radiation Therapy in Endometrial Carcinoma-1, -2, and -3 trial cohort. METHODS: After MMR-immunohistochemistry, MLH1-promoter methylation testing, and next-generation sequencing, tumors were classified into 3 groups according to the molecular cause of their MMRd-EC. Kaplan-Meier method, log-rank test, and Cox model were used for survival analysis. Competing risk analysis was used to estimate the subsequent cancer probability. All statistical tests were 2-sided. RESULTS: Among the 1336 ECs, 410 (30.7%) were MMRd. A total of 380 (92.7%) were fully triaged: 275 (72.4%) were MLH1-hypermethylated MMRd-ECs; 36 (9.5%) LS MMRd-ECs, and 69 (18.2%) MMRd-ECs due to other causes. Limiting screening of EC patients to 60 years or younger or to 70 years or younger would have resulted in missing 18 (50.0%) and 6 (16.7%) LS diagnoses, respectively. Five-year recurrence-free survival was 91.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 83.1% to 100%; hazard ratio = 0.45, 95% CI = 0.16 to 1.24, P = .12) for LS, 95.5% (95% CI = 90.7% to 100%; hazard ratio = 0.17, 95% CI = 0.05 to 0.55, P = .003) for "other" vs 78.6% (95% CI = 73.8% to 83.7%) for MLH1-hypermethylated MMRd-EC. The probability of subsequent LS-associated cancer at 10 years was 11.6% (95% CI = 0.0% to 24.7%), 1.5% (95% CI = 0.0% to 4.3%), and 7.0% (95% CI = 3.0% to 10.9%) within the LS, "other," and MLH1-hypermethylated MMRd-EC groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The LS prevalence in the Post Operative Radiation Therapy in Endometrial Carcinoma trial population was 2.8% and among MMRd-ECs was 9.5%. Patients with LS-associated ECs showed a trend towards better recurrence-free survival and higher risk for second cancers compared with patients with MLH1-hypermethylated MMRd-EC.

Long-Term Toxicity and Health-Related Quality of Life After Adjuvant Chemoradiation Therapy or Radiation Therapy Alone for High-Risk Endometrial Cancer in the Randomized PORTEC-3 Trial.

PURPOSE: The survival results of the PORTEC-3 trial showed a significant improvement in both overall and failure-free survival with chemoradiation therapy versus pelvic radiation therapy alone. The present analysis was performed to compare long-term adverse events (AE) and health-related quality of life (HRQOL). METHODS AND MATERIALS: In the study, 660 women with high-risk endometrial cancer were randomly assigned to receive chemoradiation therapy (2 concurrent cycles of cisplatin followed by 4 cycles of carboplatin/paclitaxel) or radiation therapy alone. Toxicity was graded using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 3.0. HRQOL was measured using EORTC QLQ-C30 and CX24/OV28 subscales and compared with normative data. An as-treated analysis was performed. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 74.6 months; 574 (87%) patients were evaluable for HRQOL. At 5 years, grade ≥2 AE were scored for 78 (38%) patients who had received chemoradiation therapy versus 46 (24%) who had received radiation therapy alone (P = .008). Grade 3 AE did not differ significantly between the groups (8% vs 5%, P = .18) at 5 years, and only one new late grade 4 toxicity had been reported. At 3 and 5 years, sensory neuropathy toxicity grade ≥2 persisted after chemoradiation therapy in 6% (vs 0% after radiation therapy, P < .001) and more patients reported significant tingling or numbness at HRQOL (27% vs 8%, P < .001 at 3 years; 24% vs 9%, P = .002 at 5 years). Up to 3 years, more patients who had chemoradiation therapy reported limb weakness (21% vs 5%, P < .001) and lower physical (79 vs 87, P < .001) and role functioning (78 vs 88, P < .001) scores. Both treatment groups reported similar long-term global health/quality of life scores, which were better than those of the normative population. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows a long-lasting, clinically relevant, negative impact of chemoradiation therapy on toxicity and HRQOL, most importantly persistent peripheral sensory neuropathy. Physical and role functioning impairments were seen until 3 years. These long-term data are essential for patient information and shared decision-making regarding adjuvant chemotherapy for high-risk endometrial cancer.

PARP and PD-1/PD-L1 checkpoint inhibition in recurrent or metastatic endometrial cancer.

The prognosis of recurrent or metastatic endometrial cancer is poor, with five-year survival of only 10-20 %. First-line therapy consists of either platinum-based chemotherapy or hormonal therapy. No standard subsequent-line therapy has been identified. In recent years, significant progress has been made in the knowledge on underlying molecular biology of endometrial cancer and potential targets for therapy have been identified. Targeted therapies as poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors and immunotherapy as PD-1/PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitors have the potential to be effective against specific subtypes of endometrial cancer. Preclinical studies have shown that combining these agents may result in a synergistic effect. In this review, we focus on the molecular basis of checkpoint inhibition and targeted therapy as PARP inhibition in endometrial cancer and summarize available clinical data, and ongoing and planned clinical trials that investigate these agents as mono- or combination therapies in endometrial cancer and where relevant, other gynecological cancers.

Patterns of re-irradiation for recurrent gliomas and validation of a prognostic score.

PURPOSE OR OBJECTIVE: Re-irradiation is a generally accepted method for salvage treatment in patients with recurrent glioma. However, no standard radiation regimen has been defined. This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of different treatment regimens and to independently externally validate a recently published reirradiation risk score. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed a cohort of patients with recurrent malignant glioma treated with salvage conventionally fractionated (CFRT), hypofractionated (HFRT) or stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) between 2007 and 2017 at the University Medical Centers in Utrecht and Groningen. RESULTS: Of the 121 patients included, 60 patients (50%) underwent CFRT, 22 (18%) HFRT and 39 (32%) SRT. The primary tumor was grade II-III in 52 patients and grade IV in 69 patients with median Overall Survival (mOS) since first surgery of 113 [Interquartile range: 53.2-137] and 39.7 [24.6-64.9] months respectively (p < 0.01). Overall, mOS from the first day of re-irradiation was 9.7 months [6.5-14.6]. No significant difference in mOS was found between the treatment groups. In multivariate analysis, the Karnofsky performance scale ≥70% (p < 0.01), re-irradiation for first recurrence (p = 0.02), longer time interval between RT start dates (p < 0.01) and smaller planning target volume (p < 0.05) were significant favorable prognostic factors. The reirradiation risk score was validated. CONCLUSION: In our series, mOS after reirradiation was sufficient to justify use of this modality. Until a reliable treatment decision tool is developed based on larger retrospective research, the decision for re-irradiation schedule should remain personalized and based on a multidisciplinary evaluation of each patient.