Is the positivity of estrogen receptor or progesterone receptor different between type 1 and type 2 endometrial cancer?

Shen, Fang; Gao, Yifei; Ding, Jingxin; Chen, Qi

doi:10.18632/oncotarget.13471

Cited by 52 publications

(51 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Hormone receptor status is also correlated with the aforementioned clinicopathologic traits. Specifically, the loss of ER and PR status is associated with EC lesions that are designated as type II, of higher tumor grade, and are more prone to deep myometrial invasion [2,3,17,28,29,31]. In this study, the statistically significant difference in FIGO staging by immunohistochemistry (IHC) further lends support to the notion that a decrease in ER expression is correlated to more advanced stages of EC (p<0.05) ( Table 2).…”

Section: The Independent Association Of Er and Pr Receptor Status With supporting

confidence: 66%

“…Among them, the most recent figures by Tomica, Ramic [28] reported a positive rate of 65.2% for ER expression and 59.4% for PR expression in a Caucasian population. Interestingly, while our data on ER and PR receptor status resonates with those found in a Caucasian population, our positive rates are lower in comparison to those reported in a Chinese cohort by Shen et al [17], which showed an overall rate of 85% for both ER and PR expression. Such disparity may be the result of the sequential loss of receptors in disease progression [26], as patients were neither stratified by the year of diagnosis, nor was the duration of EC analyzed in either study.…”

Section: Independent Er and Pr Receptor Status In Ecsupporting

confidence: 66%

“…Given the endometrium's high sensitivity to steroid hormones and the significant impact hormones have in modulating endometrial growth, molecular tumor classification based on receptor status is suspected to play an important prognostic role in the management and treatment of EC. The presence of steroid receptors ER and PR, in particular, have been considered to be associated with favorable outcomes in the majority of type I tumors [2,13,17,19,27]; however, its prognostic significance is not universally accepted and remains unclear. In this study, both ER and PR protein were expressed in the cell nucleus (Figure 1 & 2).…”

Section: Independent Er and Pr Receptor Status In Ecmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Aside from clinical and pathological characteristics, endocrine markers in the form of ER, PR, and HER2 are particularly attractive as prognostic markers for EC given their direct involvement in the normal regulation and maintenance of endometrial health [16]. In the regular progression of the menstrual cycle, the lining of the uterus is subject to a pair of steroid hormones, estrogen and progesterone, that each exerts an opposing effect on the endometrial glandular epithelium [13,17,18]. In particular, estrogen has a mitogenic effect that drives the proliferation of the endometrial epithelium via ER.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Estrogen Receptor, Progesterone Receptor, and HER2 Receptor Markers in Endometrial Cancer

Wang¹,

Tran²,

Fu³

et al. 2020

J. Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Endometrial cancer (EC) is a major gynecologic adenocarcinoma that arises from the endometrium. While the incidence of EC is on the rise worldwide, survivorship and clinical advancement have considerably lagged compared to other cancers. Given the sensitive nature of the endometrium and its high expression of hormone receptors, hormonal therapy has become a favorable alternative treatment compared to highly toxic chemotherapeutics and radiation therapy. Methods: Clinical samples from patients diagnosed with EC were obtained. ER and PR staining were performed according to the S-P kit, and HER2 staining was carried out according to the UltrasensitiveTM S-P immunohistochemistry kit protocol. Chi-square analysis was conducted using the SPSS. P-values of less than 0.05 were taken as an a priori value for statistical significance. Results: Immunohistochemical (IHC) analysis showed the overall positive expression rates of ER, PR, and HER2 to be 59.8%, 75.0%, and 71.1%, respectively. Significant co-expression was found among all three receptors, suggesting a cooperative, synergistic effect. More importantly, we found that ER expression was correlated with FIGO staging and cervical invasion, whereas PR expression was associated with histologic type. No clinicopathologic features were correlated with HER2 expression, but HER2 positivity was inversely associated with the degree of HER2 overexpression. Conclusions: These results suggest that EC is a heterogeneous disease that may not conform to traditional, prototypically defined subtypes. The status of ER, PR, and HER2 receptors may have the potential to serve as prognostic indicators for EC, but further analysis is needed to ascertain their prognostic significance.

show abstract

Section: The Independent Association Of Er and Pr Receptor Status With supporting

confidence: 66%

Section: Independent Er and Pr Receptor Status In Ecsupporting

confidence: 66%

Section: Independent Er and Pr Receptor Status In Ecmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Estrogen Receptor, Progesterone Receptor, and HER2 Receptor Markers in Endometrial Cancer

Wang¹,

Tran²,

Fu³

et al. 2020

J. Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our objective in this study was to re-evaluate select molecular markers of purported prognostic significance: L1-cell adhesion molecule (L1CAM) [14][15][16], progesterone receptor (PR) [17][18][19], estrogen receptor alpha (ER) [18][19][20], stathmin (STMN) [21,22], and phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN) [23,24], assessing their value in the framework of modern molecular classification (by ProMisE).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of endometrial carcinoma prognostic immunohistochemistry markers in the context of molecular classification

Karnezis

Leung

Magrill

et al. 2017

The Journal of Pathology CR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Molecular subclassification of endometrial carcinoma (EC) with Proactive Molecular Risk Classifier for Endometrial Cancer (ProMisE) identifies four subtypes [DNA polymerase epsilon (POLE) mutant, mismatch repair‐deficient, p53 wild‐type (wt), and p53 abnormal]. The aim of this study was to evaluate additional EC biomarkers in the context of these subtypes. Tissue microarrays encompassing 460 previously characterized ECs were assessed for L1‐cell adhesion molecule (L1CAM), progesterone receptor (PR), estrogen receptor (ER) alpha, stathmin, and phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN), by immunohistochemistry (IHC). Associations with clinicopathological parameters, molecular subtype, and outcomes were determined. About 413 ECs (75% endometrioid, >15% serous) had complete data. L1CAM overexpression was found in 16%, associated with older age, lower body mass index (BMI), advanced stage, grade 3 (97%), non‐endometrioid histology (84%), deep myometrial invasion, lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI), and ER‐negative, PR‐negative status. Tumours overexpressing L1CAM were associated with poor outcomes {hazard ratio (HR) [95% confidence interval (CI)] 3.35 [2.10–5.23] for disease‐specific survival [DSS], p < 0.0001}. PR positivity was associated with younger women, higher BMI, early stage (77% stage I), low grade (61%), endometrioid histology (90%) without LVSI or nodal disease, ER positivity (90%), p53wt tumours (55%), and favourable outcomes [HR (CI) 0.39 (0.25–0.62) for DSS, p < 0.0001]. ER positive tumours were early stage (73%), low grade, endometrioid histology, with improved DSS. Stathmin and PTEN IHC were not associated with outcomes. There was minimal agreement between IHC and mutation status for PTEN. L1CAM overexpression was significantly associated with the p53 abnormal molecular subtype, which accounted for more than 70% of the tumours overexpressing L1CAM. PR expression also correlated with molecular subtype, with most PR negative tumours being p53 abnormal. Multivariable analysis demonstrated that only ProMisE subtype [overall survival (OS), DSS, and progression‐free survival] and age (OS only) maintained an association with outcomes. The prognostic significance of the single biomarkers tested could be explained based on their being covariable with the ProMisE molecular subtype.

show abstract

mPRα mediates P4/Org OD02‐0 to improve the sensitivity of lung adenocarcinoma to EGFR‐TKIs via the EGFR‐SRC‐ERK1/2 pathway

Guan

Chen

et al. 2019

Molecular Carcinogenesis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The discovery of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations has made EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR‐TKIs) a milestone in the treatment for advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, patients lacking EGFR mutations are not sensitive to EGFR‐TKI treatment and the emergence of secondary resistance poses new challenges for the targeted therapy of lung cancer. In this study, we identified that the expression of membrane progesterone receptor α (mPRα) was associated with EGFR mutations in lung adenocarcinoma patients and subsequently affected the efficacy of EGFR‐TKIs. Progesterone (P4) or its derivative Org OD02‐0 (Org), which is mediated by mPRα, increases the function of EGFR‐TKIs to suppress the proliferation, migration, and invasion of lung adenocarcinoma cells in vitro and in vivo. In addition, the mPRα pathway triggers delayed resistance to EGFR‐TKIs. Mechanistic investigations demonstrated that the mPRα pathway can crosstalk with the EGFR pathway by activating nongenomic effects to inhibit the EGFR‐SRC‐ERK1/2 pathway, thereby promoting antitumorigenic effects. In conclusion, our data describe an essential role for mPRα in improving sensitivity to EGFR‐TKIs, thus rationalizing its potential as a therapeutic target for lung adenocarcinomas.

show abstract

Is the positivity of estrogen receptor or progesterone receptor different between type 1 and type 2 endometrial cancer?

Cited by 52 publications

References 26 publications

Estrogen Receptor, Progesterone Receptor, and HER2 Receptor Markers in Endometrial Cancer

Estrogen Receptor, Progesterone Receptor, and HER2 Receptor Markers in Endometrial Cancer

Evaluation of endometrial carcinoma prognostic immunohistochemistry markers in the context of molecular classification

mPRα mediates P4/Org OD02‐0 to improve the sensitivity of lung adenocarcinoma to EGFR‐TKIs via the EGFR‐SRC‐ERK1/2 pathway

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About