Performance of the Idylla microsatellite instability test in endometrial cancer.

CONTEXT: DNA mismatch repair (MMR) deficiency (dMMR) testing is now recommended in endometrial cancer. Defect identification in the molecules participating in this pathway, or the presence of microsatellite instability, are commonly employed for this purpose. Novel methods are continuously evolving to report dMMR/microsatellite instability and to easily perform routine diagnoses. OBJECTIVE: The main aim of this study was to compare the concordance of the Idylla microsatellite instability test for the identification of dMMR endometrial cancer samples defined by immunohistochemistry and MMR genomic status. DESIGN: We applied the Idylla MSI test to 126 early-stage endometrial cancer cases with MMR testing by immunohistochemistry and genomic characterization (methylation in MLH1 and sequence alterations in MLH1, PMS2, MSH2 and MSH6). Individual markers and overall specific performance indicators were explored. RESULTS: The Idylla platform achieved a higher global concordance rate with MMR genomic status than with immunohistochemistry (75 % and 66 %, respectively). Sensitivity and specificity are also higher (75 % vs 66 % and 96 % vs 90 %, respectively). Clustering analysis split the patients into 2 well-differentiated clusters, the pMMR and the dMMR group, represented by MLH1/PMS2 loss and the MLH1 methylated promoter. Overall, immunohistochemistry and MMR genomic status identified more dMMR cases than did the Idylla test, although correlations were improved with a modified Idylla test cut-off. CONCLUSIONS: Performance of the Idylla test was better correlated with MMR genomic status than MMR immunohistochemistry status, which improved with a modified test cut-off. Further studies are needed to confirm the cut-off accuracy.

Comparison of Methods for Testing Mismatch Repair Status in Endometrial Cancer.

Approximately 20-30% of endometrial carcinomas (EC) are characterized by mismatch repair (MMR) deficiency (dMMR) or microsatellite instability (MSI), and their testing has become part of the routine diagnosis. The aim of this study was to establish and compare the MMR status using various approaches. Immunohistochemistry (IHC), PCR-based MSI, and the detection of defects in the four key MMR genes (MLH1, PMS2, MSH2, and MSH6) via methylation-specific multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA) and targeted next-generation sequencing (NGS) were performed. MSH3 expression was also evaluated. A set of 126 early-stage EC samples were analyzed, 53.2% of which were dMMR and 46.8% of which were proficient MMR (pMMR) as determined using IHC, whereas 69.3% were classified as microsatellite stable, while 8.8% and 21.9% were classified MSI-low (MSI-L) and MSI-high (MSI-H), respectively. In total, 44.3% of the samples showed genetic or epigenetic alterations in one or more genes; MLH1 promoter methylation was the most common event. Although acceptable concordance was observed, there were overall discrepancies between the three testing approaches, mainly associated with the dMMR group. IHC had a better correlation with MMR genomic status than the MSI status determined using PCR. Further studies are needed to establish solid conclusions regarding the best MMR assessment technique for EC.

iRECIST and atypical patterns of response to immuno-oncology drugs.

With the advent of immunotherapy as one of the keystones of the treatment of our patients with cancer, a number of atypical patterns of response to these agents has been identified. These include pseudoprogression, where the tumor initially shows objective growth before decreasing in size, and hyperprogression, hypothesized to be a drug-induced acceleration of the tumor burden. Despite it being >10 years since the first immune-oncology drug was approved, neither the biology behind these paradoxical responses has been well understood, nor their incidence, identification criteria, predictive biomarkers, or clinical impact have been fully described. Immune-based Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (iRECIST) guidelines have been published as a revision to the RECIST V.1.1 criteria for use in trials of immunotherapeutics, and the iRECIST subcommittee (of the RECIST Working Group) is working on elucidating these aspects, with data sharing a current major challenge to move forward with this unmet need in immuno-oncology.

Prognosis Stratification Tools in Early-Stage Endometrial Cancer: Could We Improve Their Accuracy?

There are three prognostic stratification tools used for endometrial cancer: ESMO-ESGO-ESTRO 2016, ProMisE, and ESGO-ESTRO-ESP 2020. However, these methods are not sufficiently accurate to address prognosis. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the integration of molecular classification and other biomarkers could be used to improve the prognosis stratification in early-stage endometrial cancer. Relapse-free and overall survival of each classifier were analyzed, and the c-index was employed to assess accuracy. Other biomarkers were explored to improve the precision of risk classifiers. We analyzed 293 patients. A comparison between the three classifiers showed an improved accuracy in ESGO-ESTRO-ESP 2020 when RFS was evaluated (c-index = 0.78), although we did not find broad differences between intermediate prognostic groups. Prognosis of these patients was better stratified with the incorporation of CTNNB1 status to the 2020 classifier (c-index 0.81), with statistically significant and clinically relevant differences in 5-year RFS: 93.9% for low risk, 79.1% for intermediate merged group/CTNNB1 wild type, and 42.7% for high risk (including patients with CTNNB1 mutation). The incorporation of molecular classification in risk stratification resulted in better discriminatory capability, which could be improved even further with the addition of CTNNB1 mutational evaluation.