Advertisement

Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

, Volume 299, Issue 6, pp 1511–1524 | Cite as

PTEN expression in endometrial hyperplasia and risk of cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

  • Antonio Raffone
  • Antonio TravaglinoEmail author
  • Gabriele Saccone
  • Martina Viggiani
  • Pierluigi Giampaolino
  • Luigi Insabato
  • Antonio Mollo
  • Giuseppe De Placido
  • Fulvio Zullo
Review
  • 114 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

Rates of progression of endometrial hyperplasia (EH) to endometrial cancer (EC) are highly variable. Among several prognostic markers, PTEN has been recommended by ESMO–ESGO–ESTRO to identify premalignant EH. However, its prognostic accuracy is unclear. Thus, we aimed to assess: (1) the association between PTEN loss in EH and risk of cancer, and (2) the prognostic accuracy of PTEN immunohistochemistry in EH.

Methods

Electronic databases were searched from their inception to June 2018. All studies assessing PTEN immunohistochemistry in EH and the presence of EC on subsequent hysterectomy were included. Odds ratio (OR), sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value (PPV and NPV), positive and negative likelihood ratio (LR + and LR−) and area under the curve (AUC) on SROC curves were calculated with subgroup analysis (short/long-term; atypical/non-atypical EH).

Results

Nine retrospective studies assessing 933 EH were included. PTEN loss in EH was significantly associated with increased risk of EC (OR = 3.32, p = 0.001). The association was significant only on the short term ( < 1 year) (OR = 3.45, p = 0.002) and in atypical EH (OR = 1.89, p = 0.01). For overall analysis and short-term/atypical EH subgroup the prognostic accuracy was low, with sensitivity = 0.58 and 0.68, specificity = 0.60 and 0.48, VPp = 0.41 and 0.54, VPN = 0.75 and 0.63, LR +  = 1.80 and 1.37, LR − =  0.62 and 0.56, AUC = 0.687 and 0.721, respectively.

Conclusion

PTEN loss in EH is a risk factor for EC, but is not reliable in predicting the risk of EC. In atypical EH, PTEN loss is associated with a risk of concurrent EC of over 50%. This information might integrate the patients’ informed consent for the choice of treatment (conservative/hysterectomy), especially in borderline cases. In conservative approach, PTEN loss might suggest closer follow-up.

Keywords

EIN Endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia Endometrioid adenocarcinoma Immunohistochemical Prognosis Tumor suppressor protein phosphatase Tensin homolog 

Notes

Author contributions

AR, AT: protocol/project development, data collection, data analysis, and manuscript writing/editing. GS: data analysis and manuscript writing/editing. MV: protocol/project development and data collection. PG: protocol/project development and manuscript writing/editing. LI: manuscript writing/editing and study supervision. AM: protocol/project development and study supervision. GDP: protocol/project development and study supervision. FZ: protocol/project development, manuscript writing/editing, and study supervision.

Funding

No financial support was received for this study.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors report no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Kurman R, Carcangiu M, Herrington C, Young R (2014) World Health Organisation classification of tumors of female reproductive organs, 4th edn. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Press, LyonGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sherman ME (2000) Theories of endometrial carcinogenesis: a multidisciplinary approach. Mod Pathol 13:295–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R et al (2015) Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer 136:E359–E386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Travaglino A, Raffone A, Saccone G et al (2018) Endometrial hyperplasia and the risk of coexistent cancer: WHO versus EIN criteria. Histopathology.  https://doi.org/10.1111/his.13776 Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baak JP, Mutter GL (2005) EIN and WHO94. J Clin Pathol. 58(1):1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kurman RJ, Kaminski PF, Norris HJ (1985) The behavior of endometrial hyperplasia A long-term study of "untreated" hyperplasia in 170 patients. Cancer 56(2):403–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Horn LC, Schnurrbusch U, Bilek K, Hentschel B, Einenkel J (2004) Risk of progression in complex and atypical endometrial hyperplasia: clinicopathologic analysis in cases with and without progestogen treatment. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 14(2):348–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lacey JV Jr, Sherman ME, Rush BB et al (2010) Absolute risk of endometrial carcinoma during 20-year follow-up among women with endometrial hyperplasia. J Clin Oncol. 28(5):788–792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Baak JP, Mutter GL, Robboy S et al (2005) The molecular genetics and morphometry-based endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia classification system predicts disease progression in endometrial hyperplasia more accurately than the 1994 World Health Organization classification system. Cancer 103(11):2304–2312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gallos ID, Allazam M, Clark TJ et al (2016) Management of Endometrial Hyperplasia Green-top Guideline No. 67 RCOG/BSGE Joint Guideline. https://www.rcog.org.uk/en/guidelines-research-services/guidelines/gtg67/
  11. 11.
    Sanderson PA, Critchley HOD, Williams ARW, Arends MJ, Saunders PTK (2017) New concepts for an old problem: the diagnosis of endometrial hyperplasia. Hum Reprod Update 23(2):232–254Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    McCluggage WG (2006) My approach to the interpretation of endometrial biopsies and curettings. J Clin Pathol 59(8):801–812CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Raffone A, Travaglino A, Saccone A et al (2019) Endometrial hyperplasia and progression to cancer: which classification system stratifies the risk better? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Gynecol Obstet.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-019-05103-1 Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network, et al. Integrated genomic characterization of endometrial carcinoma. Nature 2013;497(7447):67-73Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Colombo N, Creutzberg C, Amant F, et al. ESMO-ESGO-ESTRO Consensus Conference on Endometrial Cancer: diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2016;27(1):16-41Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Raffone A, Travaglino A, Saccone G et al (2018) Loss of PTEN expression as diagnostic marker of endometrial precancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand.  https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.13513 Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M et al (2015) Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev 4:1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME et al (2011) QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 155(8):529–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lacey JV Jr, Mutter GL, Ronnett BM et al (2008) PTEN expression in endometrial biopsies as a marker of progression to endometrial carcinoma. Cancer Res 68(14):6014–6020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sotiriadis A, Papatheodorou SI, Martins WP (2016) Synthesizing evidence from diagnostic accuracy tests: the SEDATE guideline. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 47(3):386–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ørbo A, Nilsen MN, Arnes MS, Pettersen I, Larsen K (2003) Loss of expression of MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PTEN related to endometrial cancer in 68 patients with endometrial hyperplasia. Int J Gynecol Pathol 22(2):141–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Baak JP, Van Diermen B, Steinbakk A et al (2005) Lack of PTEN expression in endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia is correlated with cancer progression. Hum Pathol 36(5):555–561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Quddus MR, Ologun BA, Sung CJ, Steinhoff MM, Lawrence WD (2009) Utility of PTEN expression of endometrial "surface epithelial changes" and underlying atypical endometrial hyperplasia. Int J Gynecol Pathol 28(5):471–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pavlakis K, Messini I, Vrekoussis T et al (2010) PTEN-loss and nuclear atypia of EIN in endometrial biopsies can predict the existence of a concurrent endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 119(3):516–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Steinbakk A, Gudlaugsson E, Aasprong OG et al (2011) Molecular biomarkers in endometrial hyperplasias predict cancer progression. Am J Obstet Gynecol 204(4):357.e1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Robbe EJ, van Kuijk SM, de Boed EM et al (2012) Predicting the coexistence of an endometrial adenocarcinoma in the presence of atypical complex hyperplasia: immunohistochemical analysis of endometrial samples. Int J Gynecol Cancer 22(7):1264–1272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Berg A, Hoivik EA, Mjøs S et al (2015) Molecular profiling of endometrial carcinoma precursor, primary and metastatic lesions suggests different targets for treatment in obese compared to non-obese patients. Oncotarget 6(2):1327–1339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Vierkoetter K, Wong J, Ahn HJ, Shimizu D, Kagami L, Terada K (2018) Using gene expression in patients with endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia to assess the risk of cancer. Gynecol Oncol Rep 24:24–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Xiong Y, Xiong YY, Zhou YF (2010) Expression and significance of beta-catenin, Glut-1 and PTEN in proliferative endometrium, endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia and endometrioid adenocarcinoma. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 31(2):160–164Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Feng ZZ, Chen JW, Yang ZR, Lu GZ, Cai ZG (2012) Expression of PTTG1 and PTEN in endometrial carcinoma: correlation with tumorigenesis and progression. Med Oncol. 29(1):304–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mutter GL, Lin MC, Fitzgerald JT et al (2000) Altered PTEN expression as a diagnostic marker for the earliest endometrial precancers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 92(11):924–930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Raffone A, Travaglino A, Saccone G et al (2018) PAX2 in endometrial carcinogenesis and in differential diagnosis of endometrial hyperplasia: A systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand.  https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.13512 Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Travaglino A, Raffone A, Saccone G et al (2018) Loss of B-cell lymphoma 2 immunohistochemical expression in endometrial hyperplasia: a specific marker of precancer and novel indication for treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 97(12):1415–1426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Travaglino A, Raffone A, Saccone G et al (2019) Immunohistochemical Nuclear Expression of β-Catenin as a Surrogate of CTNNB1 Exon 3 Mutation in Endometrial Cancer. Am J Clin Pathol.  https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcp/aqy178 Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Travaglino A, Raffone A, Saccone G et al (2019) Immunohistochemical predictive markers of response to conservative treatment of endometrial hyperplasia and early endometrial cancer: a systematic review. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand.  https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.13587 Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Travaglino A, Raffone A, Saccone G et al (2018) PTEN as a predictive marker of response to conservative treatment in endometrial hyperplasia and early endometrial cancer A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 231:104–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Mutter GL, Monte NM, Neuberg D, Ferenczy A, Eng C (2014) Emergence, involution, and progression to carcinoma of mutant clones in normal endometrial tissues. Cancer Res 74(10):2796–2802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Russo M, Broach J, Sheldon K et al (2017) Clonal evolution in paired endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia/atypical hyperplasia and endometrioid adenocarcinoma. Hum Pathol 67:69–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Gallos ID, Yap J, Rajkhowa M, Luesley DM, Coomarasamy A, Gupta JK (2012) Regression, relapse, and live birth rates with fertility-sparing therapy for endometrial cancer and atypical complex endometrial hyperplasia: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 207(4):266.e1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Giampaolino P, Di Spiezio Sardo A, Mollo A et al (2018) Hysteroscopic endometrial focal resection followed by levonorgestrel intrauterine device insertion as a fertility-sparing treatment of atypical endometrial hyperplasia and early endometrial cancer: a retrospective study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2018.07.001 Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Raffone A, Travaglino A, Saccone G et al (2019) Should progesterone and estrogens receptors be assessed for predicting the response to conservative treatment of endometrial hyperplasia and cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand.  https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.13586 Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Raffone A, Travaglino A, Saccone G et al (2019) Management of women with atypical polypoid adenomyoma of the uterus: a quantitative systematic review. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand.  https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.13553 Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Travaglino A, Raffone A, Saccone G et al (2019) Complexity of glandular architecture should be reconsidered in the classification and management of endometrial hyperplasia. APMIS.  https://doi.org/10.1111/apm.12945 Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Allison KH, Tenpenny E, Reed SD, Swisher EM, Garica RL (2008) Immunohistochemical markers in endometrial hyperplasia: is there a panel with promise? A review. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 16(4):329–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Garg K, Broaddus RR, Soslow RA, Urbauer DL, Levine DA, Djordjevic B (2012) Pathologic scoring of PTEN immunohistochemistry in endometrial carcinoma is highly reproducible. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 31(1):48–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Travaglino a, Raffone A, Saccone A, et al. PTEN immunohistochemistry in endometrial hyperplasia: which are the optimal criteria for the diagnosis of precancer? APMIS. 2019 Feb 25. doi: 10.1111/apm.12938. [Epub ahead of print]Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Antonio Raffone
    • 1
  • Antonio Travaglino
    • 2
    Email author
  • Gabriele Saccone
    • 1
  • Martina Viggiani
    • 3
  • Pierluigi Giampaolino
    • 4
  • Luigi Insabato
    • 2
  • Antonio Mollo
    • 1
  • Giuseppe De Placido
    • 1
  • Fulvio Zullo
    • 1
  1. 1.Gynecology and Obstetrics Unit, Department of Neuroscience, Reproductive Sciences and Dentistry, School of MedicineUniversity of Naples Federico IINaplesItaly
  2. 2.Anatomic Pathology Unit, Department of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, School of MedicineUniversity of Naples Federico IINaplesItaly
  3. 3.Oncology Unit, Department of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, School of MedicineUniversity of Naples Federico IINaplesItaly
  4. 4.Obstetrics and Gynecology Unit, Department of Public Health, School of MedicineUniversity of Naples Federico IINaplesItaly

Personalised recommendations