Dedifferentiated Endometrial Carcinoma: Comparison
Please note this is a comparison between Version 1 by Giovanna Giordano and Version 3 by Fanny Huang.

In a neoplasm, dedifferentiation is characterised by the presence of a high-grade neoplasm which can occur de novo, be juxtaposed to, or arise as a recurrence of a previously well-differentiated tumour. Usually, this occurrence results in mesenchymal neoplasms. In epithelial malignant neoplasms, dedifferentiation has been observed in salivary gland carcinomas including adenoid cystic carcinoma, mucoepidermoid carcinoma, myoepithelial carcinoma, and acinic cell carcinoma. In addition, dedifferentiated carcinomas have been reported in the pancreas and in the gastrointestinal and urinary tracts. In the female genital tract, dedifferentiated carcinoma have been described in the endometrium and ovary. Histologically, this entity is characterised by both low-grade endometrioid carcinoma and a solid undifferentiated component.

  • Endometrial dedifferentiated/undifferentiated carcinoma
  • The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) Research Network

1. Introduction

Dedifferentiation represents the presence of a high-grade neoplasm which can occur de novo or be juxtaposed to, or arise as a recurrence of a previously well-differentiated neoplasm. Dedifferentiation in a malignant neoplasm can be considered as a histological indicator of tumour progression. Moreover, this process proves that some malignant neoplasms have a plasticity, in which tumour cells lose their specialized properties and take less differentiated phenotypes reminiscent of early embryonic development or regenerative processes [1]. Dedifferentiation is often associated with increased tumour cell invasiveness and drug resistance [2][3][4][2,3,4] and has been recognized in many malignant epithelial neoplasms such as salivary gland carcinoma, adenoid cystic carcinoma, mucoepidermoid carcinoma, and myoepithelial carcinoma [5]. In addition, dedifferentiated carcinomas have been observed in the gastro-intestinal tract, pancreas, and urinary tract [6][7][8][6,7,8].

2. Clinical Features

Regarding age in different studies, this neoplasm occurs during the sixth and seventh decades [9][10][18,19]. However, in some series, the patients’ age ranged from 30–84 years and many patients were <40 years [11][20]. Clinically, the neoplasms were characterised via vaginal bleeding. The neoplasm often presented an advanced FIGO development stage [9][10][12][13][14][15][15,18,19,21,22,23]. The clinical course in many instances was fulminant [16][24] and sometimes at diagnosis the neoplasm was characterised via simultaneous cerebellar and adrenal metastases [17][25]. In some cases, the metastases were observed in bones [18][26] while recurrences were also observed in bones and other organs, such as the supraclavicular lymph nodes, vagina, omentum, and peritoneum, despite neoadjuvant chemotherapy [19][27]. In the series reported by Goh et al. it seemed that long disease-free survival was related to a small proportion of undifferentiated component in the primary neoplasm [19][27]. As emphasized by Yokomizo et al., in some cases of EDC, it is possible to observe a family history of colon cancer in a first-degree relative and a loss of DNA mismatch-repair protein (MMR) expression [20][28]. Thus, it is also important in this subtype of endometrial carcinoma to evaluate a counselling procedure to identify the risk of Lynch syndrome. This syndrome is an autosomal dominant inherited cancer susceptibility, which is associated with germline mutations in one set of MMR genes (MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS) [21][29].

3. The Main Morphological and Immunohistochemical Features of EDC Used for Correct Pathological Diagnosis

Under macroscopic examination, EDC can be both a polypoid and infiltrative lesion [12][22][23][24][25][15,30,31,32,33] with large areas of necrosis [12][22][24][15,30,32]. Occasionally, the lesion involves the lower uterine segment [12][25][15,33]. Usually, under microscopic examination, the neoplasm characteristically shows an undifferentiated component lacking any evidence of differentiation and a concomitant glandular endometrial component of a low grade (Grade 1 or Grade 2) [26][10]. This undifferentiated component is characterised by large necrotic areas and presents a solid growth pattern. In this component, the neoplastic cells are discohesive and monomorphic with oval nuclei, prominent nucleoli, and coarse chromatin, while mitotic figures are frequent [26][10].
Due to several peculiar morphological features, the correct diagnosis of this neoplasm can be exceedingly difficult and this rare and lethal malignancy may be misdiagnosed in pathological study.
Many authors emphasized that the undifferentiated component was often located in the deeper area of the neoplasm [12][27][15,17], while the glandular endometrial differentiated component had the tendency to be located on the surface of the neoplasm. Due to this peculiar distribution of two different components, the neoplasm may be misdiagnosed as a low-grade endometrial carcinoma in endometrial curettage specimens [12][27][15,17]. Moreover, the simultaneous presence of glandular and solid areas can lead to misdiagnoses of FIGO Grade 2 or 3 endometrial adenocarcinoma [12][26][27][28][10,15,16,17]. As emphasized by some authors, for an adequate diagnosis, reswearchers should keep in mind that the solid component of Grade 3 and Grade 2 endometrial carcinoma shows a cohesive pattern, whereas the solid areas of the undifferentiated component of EDC characteristically presents cellular discohesion [26][27][10,17].
In addition, immunohistochemical studies have demonstrated that the undifferentiated component of EDC and the solid areas of Grade 3 and Grade 2 endometrial adenocarcinoma show different PAX 8, E-cadherin, cytokeratin, EMA, ER, and PR immunoreactivity. In fact, loss of PAX 8, E-cadherin ER and PGR, focal expression of cytokeratin, and EMA can support a diagnosis of undifferentiated/dedifferentiated carcinoma over Grade 3 or Grade 2 endometrial carcinoma [14][29][22,34].
The dedifferentiated rhabdoid variant of EDC is characterised by the presence of an undifferentiated component which shows rhabdoid cells embedded in myxoid stroma. The rhabdoid cells have eccentrically located nuclei, prominent nucleoli, and abundant and eosinophilic cytoplasm.
This variant is often misdiagnosed as a mixed Mullerian tumour (MMMT). The correct diagnosis for this subtype of EDC can be made using a specific immunohistochemical analysis which reveals SMARCA4-deficient expression in the rhabdoid component [29][30][34,35]. It is important for both the rhabdoid and the undifferentiated component of EDC to observe that these can express such neuroendocrine markers as chromogranin, synaptophysin, and neural cell adhesion molecule (CD56). In this instance, the neoplasm can mimic a neuroendocrine carcinoma and, as demonstrated by Zhou et al., may improve the prognosis of affected patients [12][24][25][15,32,33]. In cases with a scarce or absent well-differentiated endometrial carcinoma, the EDC undifferentiated component may be misdiagnosed as an undifferentiated endometrial sarcoma, a malignant lymphoma, or a plasmacytoma [12][14][31][32][15,22,36,37]. For a correct diagnosis in these cases, it is important to evaluate both the morphological and the immunohistochemical features. Consequently, the undifferentiated endometrial sarcoma presents more pleomorphic cells and focally spindled cells [33][34][38,39]. In addition, this neoplasm is characterised via chromosomal translocations, most commonly t(7;17)(p15;q21) involving zinc finger genes, JAZF1 and SUZ1, detectable via fluorescence in in situ hybridization (FISH) [35][40]. Instead, immunohistochemical analysis using Cyclin D1 is not useful for differentiating this subset of high-grade endometrial stromal sarcoma from undifferentiated endometrial carcinoma since this marker is over-expressed in both neoplasms; a molecular study is sometimes essential [36][41].
A primary lymphoma of the endometrium is exceedingly rare, and the most common histological type is diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) [37][38][42,43]. Immunohistochemistry in this malignancy can confirm the B-cell lineage of the neoplastic cells with positive staining for other specific markers such as CD20 and CD79a [39][40][44,45], that are absent in the undifferentiated component of an EDC. Moreover, extramedullary plasmacytomas in the female genital tract are quite rare, either as solitary plasmacytomas, or as part of a disseminated multiple myeloma (MM) [31][36]. This disease, when it involves the uterus, can cause abnormal uterine bleeding similar to that of primary uterine carcinoma. Immunohistochemical analysis is important for diagnoses revealing immunoreactivity for CD38 and the kappa or lambda light chain [32][37].

4. Genetic Alterations of EDC: Comparison with Other Subtypes of Endometrial Carcinoma and Impact on Prognosis and Treatment

Important risk factors for survival and recurrence in endometrial cancer, such as grade, depth of invasion, presence, or absence of lymphovascular space invasion, tumour size, and lower uterine segment involvement [41][42][43][44][46,47,48,49] are particularly important and make it possible to stratify affected patients into low, intermediate, high intermediate, and high risk while they also have impact follow-up and treatment [43][48]. Moreover, patients at low risk, with a low grade, and low development stage are recommended for observation alone. Instead, women at a high intermediate risk and high risk (advanced stage, serous or clear cell histology, Grade 3 and deep invasion) are advised to undergo more aggressive adjuvant treatments [43][48]. In patients with a high risk, chemotherapy and radiotherapy, as adjuvant treatment, were suggested in several studies with recent reports from the Gynaecologic Oncology Group study 258 (GOG 258) and Post Operative Radiation Therapy (PORTEC-3) trials [45][46][50,51]. The most common cytotoxic drugs used for advanced and recurrent endometrial cancer are carboplatin and paclitaxel [47][52].
More recently, studies of The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) Research Network which performed a genome-wide analysis of endometrial (uterine) carcinomas represented a proposal to make a reclassification of endometrial carcinoma that can distinguish distinct endometrial carcinoma types which had clinical relevance for post-surgical treatment, especially in women affected by aggressive subtypes of these neoplasms [48][53]. The results of this molecular analysis made it possible to identify four distinct types, namely: DNA Polymerase Epsilon (POLE) ultramutated, microsatellite instability (MSI) hypermutated, copy-number low, and copy-number high [48][53]. Given that whole genome sequencing to evaluate genetic alterations used by the Cancer Genome Atlas was not clinically or economically practicable on a large population base scale, many studies have suggested that more feasible techniques could be used such as immunohistochemistry [49][54] and Sanger or next-generation sequencing analysis [50][51][52][53][55,56,57,58]. To establish the treatments and improve the prognosis of a patient affected by endometrial carcinoma post-surgical treatment, pathologists, using immunohistochemistry and the Sanger sequencing technique, should follow a protocol study useful for classifying every neoplasm according to its molecular features. Such a classification is established on neoplastic tissue via immunohistochemistry for mismatch repair proteins, p53 expression, and the POLE sequencing technique. The absence of one or more mismatch repair of proteins’ immunohistochemical expression represents an accurate surrogate of microsatellite instability. In addition, an aberrant expression of p53 suggests the presence of Tp53 mutations. Thus, this analysis makes it possible to assign patients to four prognostic groups that can be considered surrogates of TCGA groups, such as ultramutated DNA polymerase-ε (POLE) with the best prognosis, MSI or mismatch repair deficient (MMRd) hypermutated neoplasms with an intermediate prognosis, p53 abnormal tumours with the worst prognosis, and tumours with copy-number low alterations with a good prognosis [51][52][53][56,57,58]. Neoplasms without defects in MMR genes, and with expression of mismatch repair proteins are named mismatched repair-proficient (MMRp). Many studies have proved that endometrial carcinoma with MMRd presents a positive correlation with the programmed cell death receptor ligand 1 protein (PD-L1) positivity [54][55][59,60], with an important impact on immunotherapeutic treatment. Programmed death receptor (PD-1) and its ligand PD-L1 are co-inhibitory trans-membrane receptors expressed on T cells that can physiologically inhibit proliferation, survival, and cytokine production of T cells, causing an immune escape [56][61]. This has an important impact on therapy, in fact, there are studies that have investigated PD-1 blockage for treatment in patients with advanced mismatch repair-deficient cancers, using drugs such as pembrolizumab and nivolumab both in other malignant neoplasms and endometrial carcinoma [57][58][59][62,63,64]. Regarding the p53 mutated group (p53mt) which reflects abnormal immunoreactivity to p53, this represents a high-risk group that has a worse prognosis with a risk of recurrences and is associated with advanced stage, Grade 3, older patient age, as well as non-endometrioid histotype, serous histotype or a ‘serous-like group’ [50][55]. For this group, chemotherapy and radiotherapy are important and can improve progression-free survival and overall survival rates [60] [65].
POLE mutated/ultramutated neoplasms on molecular analysis are characterised by the presence of POLE gene mutations which physiologically encode the catalytic subunit of DNA polymerase-ε, which, together with polymerase-δ, has an important role in DNA replication and repair alterations of DNA in eukaryotes cells [61][66]. The mutations in the exonuclease domain of polymerase-ε may compromise the 3′-to-5′ proofreading function, leading to the loss of replication accuracy, development of genomic instability, and consequently an ultramutated phenotype [62][63][67,68].
The POLE mutated/ultramutated group of endometrial cancers has a high tumour mutation burden, tumour neoantigen production, and tumour-infiltrating T cells. This subtype of neoplasm shows an excellent prognosis independent of other clinicopathological variables such as high-grade tumours [64][65][69,70] and the development stage [66][71]. The presence or absence of POLE mutation allows for a reduction in both over-treatment and under-treatment and to better delineate the prognosis of endometrial cancer [64][65][66][67][69,70,71,72]. The copy number (CN)-low (endometrioid) group is an intermediate group without a POLE mutation, abnormal expression of Tp53 and dMMR, but increased progesterone receptor expression. This suggests a basis for hormone responsiveness or in cases with CTNNB1 mutations, brachytherapy, observation, or treatment with bevacizumab [59][64].

To improve risk assessment for each endometrial carcinoma it is important to integrate molecular and clinicopathological data using such feasible techniques as immunohistochemistry and Sanger or next-generation sequencing analysis [56-59, 74].

The combining of pathological classification and the surrogate markers suggested by TCGA demonstrates that immunohistochemistry plays an important role in the molecular classification of endometrial carcinomas both to establish a prognosis and therapeutic strategies. Thus, it is especially important that this ancillary technique is performed accurately without any problems due to bad fixation and bad antigen preservation [75], just as it is important to consider any intra-tumoral heterogeneity that the neoplasm might present.

Molecular alterations of EDC and impact on prognosis and therapy

To improve risk assessment for each endometrial carcinoma it is important to integrate molecular and clinicopathological data using such feasible techniques as immunohistochemistry and Sanger or next-generation sequencing analysis  [50][51][52][53][68][56-59, 74].

The combining of pathological classification and the surrogate markers suggested by TCGA demonstrates that immunohistochemistry plays an important role in the molecular classification of endometrial carcinomas both to establish a prognosis and therapeutic strategies. Thus, it is especially important that this ancillary technique is performed accurately without any problems due to bad fixation and bad antigen preservation [69][75], just as it is important to consider any intra-tumoral heterogeneity that the neoplasm might present.

Molecular alterations of EDC and impact on prognosis and therapy

In the Cancer Genome Atlas, EDC was reported as a heterogeneous neoplasm that had a higher number of mutations, so that it could be considered a high-risk endometrial carcinoma  [22][53][70][71][72][73][30, 76-80]. Because of its rarity, poor prognosis, and association with an advanced stage at diagnosis as well as presence of higher rates of gene mutations than other high-risk endometrial cancers, there is no established treatment. In addition, due to its morphological and genetic heterogeneity, to delineate a prognosis and treatment, it is important to evaluate for each case the genomic profiling [70][71][72][73][76-80]. Many Authors have reported associations between the prognosis and certain gene mutations, such as mismatch repair (MMR) gene mutations, POLE, SWI/SNF complex  [72][73][74][75][78, 80-82] and Tp53 mutations [76, [70][76]83].

Mismatch repair (MMR) gene mutations

EDC is generally associated with MMR deficiency and is more frequent than endometrial carcinoma [12][20][77][78][79][15 28, 84-86]. Although the number of cases of EDC that have been evaluated by some Authors were small [12][20][77][78][79][15, 28,

84-86], the data observed demonstrate that they have impact the prognosis and therapy in this rare malignancy. In fact, it has been demonstrated that MSI tumours are more immunogenic, and that immune checkpoint inhibitors (anti PD-1/PD-L1 antibodies) are effective for some tumours, such as colorectal carcinoma, melanoma, renal and lung carcinomas [80][81][87, 88].

In addition, regarding EDC, Yokomizo et al. first demonstrated that the loss of MMR protein was observed only in the undifferentiated component [20][28]. In addition, Ono et al observed that in their cases there was MMR protein deficiency and that this was significantly associated with PD-L1 expression and the presence of tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes (CD8+), demonstrating that also EDC could be a target for immune checkpoint inhibitors. Due to the absence of PD-L1 expression in the well-differentiated component, Ono et al suggested that for this neoplasm the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors in combination with other  

conventional chemotherapeutic agents, such as paclitaxel plus carboplatin and cisplatin, which could provide more satisfactory results, having an action on the growth of the well-differentiated component, too [79][86]. Immune checkpoint inhibitors, such as Pembrolizumab plus Lenvatinib have been used in KEYNOTE-146, a trial which included one case of EDC  [82][89] or Dostarlimab, another anti PD-1 antibody, which showed an objective response in patients with recurrent or advanced MMRd Ecs [83][90]. Although a therapeutic strategy with a target for immune checkpoint inhibitors could improve the prognosis of patients affected by EDC, given that it is effective on the more aggressive undifferentiated component [26], it is important to keep in mind that immune checkpoint inhibitors can cause many adverse events involving multiple tissues and organs causing anaemia, lymphopenia, cutaneous rash, diarrhoea, hypoalbuminemia, dizziness, insomnia, headache and dyspnoea [80][87].

POLE domain mutations

In the TCGA classification, the POLE mutated/ultramutated group of endometrial cancers has been reported as a subtype of neoplasm that shows an excellent prognosis independently of other clinicopathological 

variables, such as high-grade tumours [64][65] [70, 71] and an advanced development stage[66] [72]. Espinosa et al were the first to report the presence of POLE exonuclease mutations in one case of EDC [84][91] and then other additional cases were reported by Rosa-Rosa et al. [71][77] and later again by Espinosa et al. [85][92]. In the series 

of 18 cases of EDC, Rosa-Rosa et al. observed two POLE-mutated cases. In the series of POLE-mutated undifferentiated and dedifferentiated endometrial carcinomas reported by Espinosa et al [85][92] the neoplasms were more frequently stage I and the patients had a better prognosis than for other carcinomas lacking this mutational status. Of note, in their study, Espinosa et al [85][92], in evaluating the survival rate, observed that patients affected by EDCs with POLE domain mutations had a better prognosis than patients affected by advanced colorectal cancer with POLE domain mutations, who had statistically significant increase in mortality despite adjuvant therapy treatment [85][92]. Although in the series of high-grade endometrial carcinoma with POLE mutation of Concin et al. and Yu et al., there were only a few cases of EDC and EUC, these Authors suggested that in cases with concomitant POLEMut and P53abn the patients could be managed like patients with POLEmut neoplasms, since the prognosis remained good [86][87][93,94].

Switch/Sucrose Non-Fermentable (SWI/SNF) complex

SWI/SNF complex is a family of ATP chromatin remodelling complexes, present in eukaryotes and basically it is a group of proteins capable of remodelling the way DNA is packaged. In fact, this complex can stimulate ATPase activity that can destabilize histone-DNA interactions causing structural change and nucleosome rearrangement. As a result of this nucleosome rearrangement, some genes may be activated or repressed [88][95]. It has been demonstrated that neoplastic cells with SWI/SNF subunit mutations have disrupted chromatin structures and fail to express many genes. The subunits that are frequently mutations in mammalian malignancies are ARID1A [89][96], PBRM1 [90][97], SMARCB1  [91]SMARCB1[98], SMARCA4 [92][99] and ARID2 [93][100]. In UEC/EDC, the protein products of core components of the SWI/SNF chromatin-remodelling complex that can be lost are {e.g., SMARCB1 (INI1) SMARCA2 (BRM), SMARCA4 (BRG-1), ARID1A,

ARID1B. More commonly, in the undifferentiated component of EDC, SMARCA4 (BRG-1), ARID1A and ARID1B are inactivated, with an absence of their expression on immunohistochemical analysis [27][30][94][95][96][97][17, 34, 101-104].

Neoplasms with core SWI/SNF-deficiency characterizes an extremely aggressive group of undifferentiated cancers which have a rapid disease progression that is refractory to conventional platinum/taxane-based chemotherapy [95][102]. In fact, Tessier-Cloutier et al, in their study, observed that at initial presentation, 55% 

of EDC with SWI/SNF deficiency had extrauterine spread in contrast to 38% of EDC with SWI/SNF-intact tumours. However, these Authors observed that for prognosis it is also important to evaluate the POLE status, given that all patients with mutated POLE showed a better prognosis with longer survival rates [95][102]. Until now there are no therapeutic applications in Ec with SWI/SNF mutations. However, due to the fact that the SWI/SNF subunit mutations are observed in a wide types of malignant neoplasms [98][99][100]  [105-107] and that there are drugs that target these genetic alterations, probably the same targeted therapies could enhance anti-cancer treatment effectiveness and provide new insights for therapeutic strategies in EDC, too. AU-15330 is a proteolysis-targeting chimera (PROTAC) degrader of the SWI/SNF ATPase subunits, SMARCA2 and SMARCA4. AU-15330 induces potent inhibition of tumour growth in xenograft models of prostate cancer and increased effectiveness of the androgen receptor enzalutamide, causing disease remission in castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) models without toxicity [99][106].

Another therapeutic strategy that can be considered for treatment of EDC/UDC is Aurora A, which has been reported as a therapeutic target in ARID1A-deficient colorectal cancer cells [106]colorectal cancer cells [108].

In addition it seems worth investigating the use of Tazemetostat for the treatment of EDC/UEC, since this drug is well tolerated in patients with advanced epithelioid sarcoma with a loss of INI1/SMARCCB1 [101][109], and its effectiveness increases in association with doxorubicin (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT042049441).

Tp53 mutations

Tp53 mutations represent other types that can be observed in EDC [70][71][76][76, 77, 83]. In their study, Rosa-Rosa et al observed, by immunohistochemical analysis, that p53 staining was positive (aberrant) in the undifferentiated component and negative in the differentiated component, suggesting that this part of the neoplasm may be developing through a “serous-like” pathway [71][75]. Usually, the mutation of Tp53 can be evaluated using immunohistochemical analysis, which can be considered a surrogate method for molecular 

study. In fact, the majority of Tp53 mutations that can be observed by immunohistochemistry, are missense mutations and they can be demonstrated as detection of overexpressed protein. However, it is important to keep in mind that there are studies which have revealed that the nonsense TP53 mutations result in an

absence of immunoreactivity due to the lack of gene product  [102][103][110, 11]. Moreover, it is important for immunohistochemical analyses to consider that this must be performed accurately without problems due to bad fixation and bad antigen preservation [69][75]. In addition, it is important to consider any morphological and genetic intra-tumoral heterogeneity that the neoplasm might have [22][53][70][71][72][73][30, 76-80]. Since Tp53 mutation represents another genetic alteration of EDC [70][71][76][76, 77, 83] agents targeting the mutant p53 pathway could be considered for treatment of this malignancy. Among these targeting agents, it is worth considering APR-246 (Eprenetapop). There are Authors who have demonstrated that APR- 246 is well tolerated with a clinical response and remissions because it is capable of restoring wild-type p53 function in malignant cells administered in combination with azacytidine in patients with TP53-mutant myeloproliferative neoplasms, such as acute myeloid leukaemia (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03072043) [104][112]. In addition, 

Adavosertib, which is a potent antitumor kinase inhibitor, in combination with carboplatin in advanced TP53 mutated ovarian cancer has been used at phase II (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01164995) [105][113].

5. Conclusions

Conclusions

In conclusion, through ouresearchers' review of the literature, it is clear that EDC is an extremely aggressive neoplasm with poor prognosis. On pathological analysis, this rare malignancy can be misdiagnosed, and its incidence therefore could be underestimated. However, a large number of studies in the last few years have contributed

to improving pathological diagnoses by using immunohistochemical analyses. The use of immunohistochemical analysis with specific markers, which can be considered surrogates of molecular techniques, have also contributed to improving knowledge of the molecular and prognostic features of this malignancy. In addition, since EDC has a specific mutation, a therapeutic approach with potent targeting drugs could be investigated for its treatment, especially for more aggressive tumours, with a worse prognosis, such as those with SWI/SNF complex mutations. ReseaIn ourchers opinion, we suggest combining pathological classification and surrogate TCGA molecular classification, options to improve the assessment of prognosis. In addition, further molecular analyses should be investigated to establish whether genetic  

alterations could have an impact on immunohistochemical expression of their surrogates. On pathological examination, in using immunohistochemistry, which can replace molecular studies, it is important that this is performed accurately without any problems due to bad fixation and bad antigen preservation [67][73] to avoid false negative results.

References

1) Friedmann‐Morvinski, D.; Verma, I.M. Dedifferentiation and reprogramming: origins of cancer stem cells. EMBO Rep. 2014,15, 244–53

 

2) Yuan, S.; Norgard, R.J.; Stanger, B.Z. Cellular Plasticity in Cancer. Cancer Discov. 2019, 9,837–51

 

3) Hölzel, M.; Bovier, A.; Tüting, T. Plasticity of tumour and immune cells: a source of heterogeneity and a cause for therapy resistance? Nat Rev Cancer. 2013 13, 365–76.

 

4) Boumahdi, S.; de Sauvage, F.J. The great escape: tumour cell plasticity in resistance to targeted therapy. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2020, 19, 39–56.

 

5) Skalova, A.: Leivo, I.; Hellquist, H.; Agaimy, A.; Simpson, R.H.W.; Stenman, G.; Vander Poorten, V.; Bishop, J.A.; Franchi, A.; et al. High-grade Transformation/Dedifferentiation in Salivary Gland Carcinomas: Occurrence Across Subtypes and Clinical Significance. Adv Anat Pathol. 2021, 28, 107-118. doi: 10.1097/PAP.0000000000000298.

 

6) Huang, S.C.; Chen, K.H.; Ng, K.F.; Lin, I.C.; Chao, Y.C.; Yeh, T.S.; Chuang, H.C.; Chen, T.C. Dedifferentiation-like tubular and solid carcinoma of the stomach shows phenotypic divergence and association with deficient SWI/SNF complex. Virchows Arch. 2022, 480, 771-781. doi: 10.1007/s00428-022-03288-6.

 

7) Fukunaga, Y.; Fukuda, A.; Omatsu, M.; Namikawa, M.; Sono, M.; Masuda, T.; Araki, O.; Nagao, M.;, Yoshikawa, T.; Ogawa, S.; et al. Loss of Arid1a and Pten in Pancreatic Ductal Cells Induces Intraductal Tubulopapillary Neoplasm via the YAP/TAZ Pathway. Gastroenterology. 2022,163, 466-480.e6. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2022.04.020.

 

8) Agaimy, A.; Bertz, S.; Cheng, L.; Hes, O.; Junker, K.; Keck, B.; Lopez-Beltran, A.; Stöckle, M.; Wullich, B.; Hartmann, A. Loss of expression of the SWI/SNF complex is a frequent event in undifferentiated/dedifferentiated urothelial carcinoma of the urinary tract. Virchows Arch. 2016, 469, 321-30. doi: 10.1007/s00428-016-1977-y.

 

9) Tenti, P.; Carnevali, L.; Paulli, M.; Franchi, M.; Babilonti, L. Dedifferentiating endometrial adenocarcinoma. Report of a case. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 1989, 10, 292-4

 

10) Silva, E.G.; Deavers, M.T.; Bodurka, D.C.; Malpica, A. Association of Low-Grade Endometrioid carcinoma of the uterus and ovary with carcinoma: a new type of dedifferentiated carcinoma? Int J Gynecol Pathol 2006, 25, 52–58 doi: 10.1097/01.pgp.0000183048.22588.18.

 

11) Silverberg, S.G.; Nogales, F.; Tavassoli, F.A.; Devilee, P. Tumours of the uterine corpus. Pathology and Genetics: Tumours of the Breast and Female Genital Organs. Lyon, France: IARC Press. World Health Organization Classification of Tumours; 2003, 217–57.

 

12) Zaino, R.; Carinelli, S.G.; Eng, C.; Kurman, R.J.; Carcangiu, M.L.; Herrington, C.S.; Young, R.H. Tumours of the uterine corpus. WHO Classification of Tumours of Female Reproductive Organs. Lyon, France: IARC Press. World Health Organization Classification of Tumours. 2014, 121–54.

13) Altrabulsi, B.; Malpica, A.; Deavers, M.T.; Deavers, M.T.; Bodurka, D.C.; Broaddus, R.; Silva, E.G. Undifferentiated carcinoma of the endometrium. Am J Surg Pathol 2005, 29, 1316–21.

14) Ronnett, B.M.; Zaino, R.J.; Ellenson, L.H.; Kurman, R.J. Endometrial carcinoma. In: Kurman RJ, editor. Blaustein’s pathology of the female genital tract. 5th ed. New York: Springer-Verlag; 2002. p. 501–59.

15) Tafe, L.J.; Garg, K.; Chew, I.; Tornos, C.; Soslow, R.A. Endometrial and ovarian carcinomas with undifferentiated components: clinically aggressive and frequently underrecognized neoplasms. Mod Pathol. 2010, 23, 781–9

16) Shen, Y.; Wang, Y.; Shi, Y.; Liu, J.; Liu, Y. Clinicopathologic study of endometrial dedifferentiated endometrioid adenocarcinoma: a case report. Int J Clin Exp Pathol. 2012, 5, 77-82

17) Murali, R.; Davidson, B.; Fadare, O.; Carlson, J.A.; Crum, C.P.; Gilks, C.B.; Irving, J.A.; Malpica, A.; Matias-Guiu, X.; McCluggage, W.G. et al. High-grade Endometrial Carcinomas: Morphologic and Immunohistochemical Features, Diagnostic Challenges and Recommendations. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2019, 38, S40-S63. doi: 10.1097/PGP.0000000000000491.

18) Onder, S.; Taskin, O.C.; Sen, F.; Topuz, S.; Kucucuk, S.; Sozen, H.; Ilhan, R.; Tuzlali, S.; Yavuz, E. High expression of SALL4 and fascin, and loss of E-cadherin expression in undifferentiated/dedifferentiated carcinomas of the endometrium: An immunohistochemical and clinicopathologic study. Medicine (Baltimore) 2017, 96, e6248. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000006248.

 

19) Stewart, C.J.; Crook, M.L. Fascin expression in undifferentiated and dedifferentiated endometrial carcinoma. Hum Pathol. 2015;46:1514–20. doi: 10.1016/j.humpath.2015.06.011

20) Taraif, S.H.; Deavers, M.T.; Malpica, A.; Silva, E.G. The significance of neuroendocrine expression in undifferentiated carcinoma of the endometrium. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2009, 28,142-7. doi: 10.1097/PGP.0b013e3181895539. PMID: 19188820.

 

21) Silva, E.G.; Deavers, M.T.; Malpica, A. Undifferentiated carcinoma of the endometrium: a review. Pathology. 2007, 39, 134-8. doi: 10.1080/00313020601159494

22) Li, Z.; Zhao, C. Clinicopathologic and Immunohistochemical Characterization of Dedifferentiated Endometrioid Adenocarcinoma. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2016, 24, 562–8. doi: 10.1097/PAI.0000000000000232

23) Morioka, S.; Tanase, Y.; Kawaguchi, R.; Uchiyama, T.; Kobayash, H. Two Cases of Dedifferentiated Endometrioid Carcinoma: Case Presentation and Brief Review of the Literature. Case Rep Obstet Gynecol. 2018, 2018, 7624785. doi: 10.1155/2018/7624785.

24) Han, J.; Ki, E.Y.; Rha, S.E.; Hur, S.; Lee, A. Dedifferentiated endometrioid carcinoma of the uterus : report of four cases and review of literature. World J Surg Oncol. 2017, 15, 17. doi: 10.1186/s12957-016-1093-0.

25) Berretta, R.; Patrelli, T.S.; Faioli, R.; Mautone, D.; Gizzo, S.; Mezzogiorno, A.; Giordano, G.; Modena A.B. Dedifferentiated endometrial cancer: an atypical case diagnosed from cerebellar and adrenal metastasis: case presentation and review of literature. Int J Clin Exp Pathol. 2013, 6, 1652-7.

26) Wu, E.S.; Shih, Ie.M.; Díaz-Montes, T.P. Dedifferentiated endometrioid adenocarcinoma: An under-recognized but aggressive tumor? Gynecol Oncol Case Rep. 2013, 5,25-7. doi: 10.1016/j.gynor.2013.02.007.

 

27) Goh, C.; Farah, B.L.; Ho, W.Y.; Wong, S.L.; Goh, C.H.R.; Chew, S.H.; Nadarajah, R.; Lim, Y.K.; Ho, T.H. Dedifferentiated endometrioid adenocarcinoma of the uterus: A case series and review of literature. Gynecol Oncol Rep. 2020, 32, 100538. doi: 10.1016/j.gore.2020.100538.

 

28) Yokomizo, R.; Yamada, K.; Iida, Y.; Kiyokawa, T.; Ueda, K.; Saito, M.; Yanaihara, N.; Nakamura, M.; Okamoto, A. Dedifferentiated endometrial carcinoma: A report of three cases and review of the literature. Mol Clin Oncol. 2017, 7, 1008-1012. doi: 10.3892/mco.2017.1437.

29) Lynch, H.T.; de la Chapelle, A. Genetic susceptibility to non-polyposis colorectal cancer. J Med Genet 1999, 36, 801-818.

 

30) Giordano, G.; D'Adda, T.; Bottarelli, L.; Lombardi, M.; Brigati, F.; Berretta, R.; Merisio, C. Two cases of low-grade endometriod carcinoma associated with undifferentiated carcinoma of the uterus (dedifferentiated carcinoma): a molecular study. Pathol Oncol Res. 2012, 18, 523-8. doi: 10.1007/s12253-011-9386-7.

 

31) Yiğit, S.; Ekinci, N.; Hayrullah, L.; Öcal, İ.; Bezircioğlu, İ. Dedifferentiated endometrioid adenocarcinoma; clinicopathologic and immunohistochemical features of five cases. J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc. 2018, 19, 132-136. doi: 10.4274/jtgga.2017.0090.

 

32) Espinosa, I.; De Leo, A.; D'Angelo, E.; Rosa-Rosa, J.M.; Corominas, M.; Gonzalez, A.; Palacios, J.; Prat, J. Dedifferentiated endometrial carcinomas with neuroendocrine features: a clinicopathologic, immunohistochemical, and molecular genetic study. Hum Pathol. 2018, 72, 100-106. doi: 10.1016/j.humpath.2017.11.006

 

33) Zhou, F.; Zhang, X.; Chen, H.; Zheng, W. Dedifferentiated Endometrioid Carcinomas with Neuroendocrine Differentiation: A Clinicopathological and Immunohistochemical Study of Three Cases. Cancer Manag Res. 2020, 12, 11623-11629. doi: 10.2147/CMAR.S279888.

34) Strehl, J.D.; Wachter, D.L.; Fiedler, J.; Heimerl, E.; Beckmann, M.W.; Hartmann, A.; Agaimy, A. Pattern of SMARCB1 (INI1) and SMARCA4 (BRG1)in poorly differentiated endometrioid adenocarcinoma of the uterus: Analysis of a series with emphasis on a novel SMARCA4-deficient dedifferentiated rhabdoid variant. Ann Diagn Pathol. 2015, 19, 198–202.

35) Ramalingam, P.; Masand, R.P.; Euscher, E.D.; Malpica, A. Undifferentiated Carcinoma of the Endometrium: An Expanded Immunohistochemical Analysis Including PAX-8 and Basal-Like Carcinoma Surrogate Markers. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2016, 35, 410-8. doi: 10.1097/PGP.0000000000000248.

36) Codorniz, A.; Cunha, R.; Fernandes, F.; Pais, M.J.; Neves, T.; Quintana, C. Uterine Extramedullary Plasmacytoma as a Primary Manifestation of Multiple Myeloma. Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2017; 39, 516-520. doi: 10.1055/s-0037-1605373.

 

37) Wang, J.; Jiang, L.; Ma, X.; Li, T.; Liu, H.; Chen, X.; Li, S. Case Report: Solitary Extramedullary Plasmacytoma in the Cervix Misdiagnosed as Cervical Cancer. Front Oncol. 2021; 11, 685070. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2021.685070.

 

38) Sardinha, R.; Hernández, T.; Fraile, S.; Tresserra, F.; Vidal, A.; Gómez, M.C.; Astudillo, A.; Hernández, N.; Saenz de Santamaría, J.; Ordi, J.; et al. Endometrial stromal tumors: immunohistochemical and molecular analysis of potential targets of tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Clin Sarcoma Res 2013, 3, 3. doi: 10.1186/2045-3329-3-3.

 

39) Kurihara, S.; Oda, Y.; Ohishi, Y.; Iwasa, A.; Takahira, T.; Kaneki, E.; Kobayashi, H.; Wake, N.; Tsuneyoshi, M. Endometrial stromal sarcomas and related high-grade sarcomas: immunohistochemical and molecular genetic study of 31 cases. Am J Surg Pathol. 2008, 32, 1228-38. doi: 10.1097/PAS.0b013e31816a3b42.

 

40) Jakate, K.; Azimi, F.; Ali, R.H.; Lee, C.H.; Clarke, B.A.; Rasty, G.; Shaw, P.A.; Melnyk, N.; Huntsman, D.G.; Laframboise, S.; et al. Endometrial sarcomas: an immunohistochemical and JAZF1 re-arrangement study in low-grade and undifferentiated tumors. Mod Pathol. 2013, 26, 95-105. doi: 10.1038/modpathol.2012.136.

 

41) Shah, V.I.; McCluggage, W.G. Cyclin D1 does not distinguish YWHAE-NUTM2 high-grade endometrial stromal sarcoma from undifferentiated endometrial carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2015, 39, 722-4. doi: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000000427.

 

42) Kosari, F.; Daneshbod, Y.; Parwaresch, R.; Krams, M.; Wacker, H.H. Lymphomas of the female genital tract: a study of 186 cases and review of the literature. Am J Surg Pathol. 2005, 29, 1512–20.

 

43) Ahmad, A.K.; Hui, P.; Litkouhi, B.; Azodi, M.; Rutherford, T.; McCarthy, S.; Xu, M.L.; Schwartz, P.E.; Ratner, E. Institutional review of primary non-hodgkin lymphoma of the female genital tract: a 33-year experience. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2014, 24, 1250–5.

44) Mandato, V.D.; Palermo, R.; Falbo, A.; Capodanno, I.; Capodanno, F.; Gelli, M.C.; Aguzzoli, L.; Abrate, M.; La Sala, G.B. Primary diffuse large B-cell lymphoma of the uterus: case report and review. Anticancer Res. 2014, 34, 4377-90.

45) Wadee, R. Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma of the endometrium: an unusual site for primary presentation South Afr J Gynaecol Oncol 2019, 11, 11–14. doi: 0.1080/20742835.2019.1591808

46) Silva, E.G.; Deavers, M.T.; Malpica, A. Undifferentiated carcinoma of the endometrium: a review. Pathology. 2007, 39, 134-8. doi: 10.1080/00313020601159494

47) Creasman, W.T.; Morrow, C.P.; Bundy, B.N.; Homesley, H.D.; Graham, J.E.; Heller, P.B. Surgical pathologic spread patterns of endometrial cancer. A Gynecologic Oncology Group Study. Cancer. 1987, 60, 2035-41. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(19901015)60:8+<2035::aid-cncr2820601515>3.0.co;2-8.

48) Guntupalli, S.R.; Zighelboim, I.; Kizer, N.T.; Zhang, Q.; Powell, M.A.; Thaker, P.H.; Goodfellow, P.J, Mutch DG. Lymphovascular space invasion is an independent risk factor for nodal disease and poor outcomes in endometrioid endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2012, 124, 31-5. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2011.09.017.

 

49) Keys, H.M.; Roberts, J.A.; Brunetto, V.L.; Zaino, R.J.; Spirtos, N.M.; Bloss, J.D.; Pearlman, A.; Maiman, M.A.; Bell, J.G. Gynecologic Oncology Group. A phase III trial of surgery with or without adjunctive external pelvic radiation therapy in intermediate risk endometrial adenocarcinoma: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Gynecol Oncol. 2004, 92, 744-51. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2003.11.048. Erratum in: Gynecol Oncol. 2004, 94, 241-2.

 

50) Kizer, N.T.; Gao, F.; Guntupalli, S.; Thaker, P.H.; Powell, M.A.; Goodfellow, P.J.; Mutch, D.G.; Zighelboim, I. Lower uterine segment involvement is associated with poor outcomes in early-stage endometrioid endometrial carcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18(5):1419-24. doi: 10.1245/s10434-010-1454-9.

 

 

 

51) de Boer, S.M.; Powell, M.E.; Mileshkin, L.; Katsaros, D.; Bessette, P.; Haie-Meder, C.; Ottevanger, P.B.; Ledermann, J.A.; Khaw, P.; Colombo, A.; et al. PORTEC study group. Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone for women with high-risk endometrial cancer (PORTEC-3): final results of an international, open-label, multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2018, 19, 295-309. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30079-2. Erratum in: Lancet Oncol. 2018,19, e184.

 

52)Matei, D.; Filiaci, V.; Randall, M.E.; Mutch, D.; Steinhoff, M.M.; DiSilvestro, P.A.; Moxley, K.M.; Kim, Y.M.; Powell, M.A.; O'Malley, D.M.; et al. Adjuvant Chemotherapy plus Radiation for Locally Advanced Endometrial Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2019, 380, 2317-2326. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1813181.

 

53)Miller, D.S.; Filiaci, V.L.; Mannel, R.S.; Cohn, D.E.; Matsumoto, T.; Tewari, K.S.; DiSilvestro, P.; Pearl, M.L.; Argenta, P.A.; Powell, M.A.; et al. Carboplatin and Paclitaxel for Advanced Endometrial Cancer: Final Overall Survival and Adverse Event Analysis of a Phase III Trial (NRG Oncology/GOG0209). J Clin Oncol. 2020, 38, 3841-3850. doi: 10.1200/JCO.20.01076.

54) Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network; Kandoth, C.; Schultz, N.; Cherniack, A.D.; Akbani, R.; Liu, Y.; Shen, H.; Robertson, A.G.; Pashtan, I.; Shen, R.; Benz, C.C.; Yau, C.; et al. Laird PW, Ding L, Zhang W, Mills GB, Kucherlapati R, Mardis ER, Levine DA. Integrated genomic characterization of endometrial carcinoma. Nature 2013; 497(7447): 67–73. doi: 10.1038/nature12113

55) Raffone, A.; Travaglino, A.; Mascolo, M.; Carbone, L.; Guida, M.; Insabato, L.; Zullo, F. TCGA molecular groups of endometrial cancer: Pooled data about prognosis. Gynecol Oncol. 2019, 155, 374-383. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2019.08.019.

 

56) Stelloo, E.; Bosse, T.; Nout, R.A.; MacKay, H.J.; Church, D.N.; Nijman, H.W.; Leary, A.; Edmondson, R.J.; Powell, M.E.; Crosbie, E.J.; et al. Refining prognosis and identifying targetable pathways for high-risk endometrial cancer; a TransPORTEC initiative. Mod Pathol. 2015, 28, 836-44. doi: 10.1038/modpathol.2015.43.

 

57) Talhouk, A.; McAlpine, J.N. New classification of endometrial cancers: the development and potential applications of genomic-based classification in research and clinical care. Gynecol Oncol Res Pract. 2016, 3, 14. doi: 10.1186/s40661-016-0035-4.

 

58) Talhouk, A.; McConechy, M.K.; Leung, S.; Yang, W.; Lum, A.; Senz, J.; Boyd, N.; Pike, J.; Anglesio, M.; Kwon, J.S.; et al. Confirmation of ProMisE: A simple, genomics-based clinical classifier for endometrial cancer. Cancer. 2017, 123, 802-813. doi: 10.1002/cncr.30496.

59) Santoro, A.; Angelico, G.; Travaglino, A.; Inzani. F.; Arciuolo, D.; Valente, M.; D'Alessandris, N.; Scaglione, G.; Fiorentino, V.; Raffone, A.; et al. New Pathological and Clinical Insights in Endometrial Cancer in View of the Updated ESGO/ESTRO/ESP Guidelines. Cancers (Basel). 2021, 13, 2623. doi: 10.3390/cancers13112623.

60) Sloan, E.A.; Ring, K.L.; Willis, B.C.; Modesitt, S.C.; Mills, A.M. PD-L1 Expression in Mismatch Repair-deficient Endometrial Carcinomas, Including Lynch Syndrome-associated and MLH1 Promoter Hypermethylated Tumors. Am J Surg Pathol. 2017;41(3):326-333. doi: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000000783.

61) Bregar, A.; Deshpande, A.; Grange, C.; Zi, T.; Stall. J.; Hirsch, H.; Reeves, J.; Sathyanarayanan, S.; Growdon, W.B.; Rueda, B.R. Characterization of immune regulatory molecules B7-H4 and PD-L1 in low and high grade endometrial tumors. Gynecol Oncol. 2017, 145, 446-452. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2017.03.006.

62) Amarin, J.Z.; Mansour, R.; Al-Ghnimat, S.; Al-Hussaini, M. Differential Characteristics and Prognosis of PD-L1-Positive Endometrial Carcinomas: A Retrospective Chart Review. Life (Basel). 2021, 11, 1047. doi: 10.3390/life11101047.

63) Sun, C.; Mezzadra, R.; Schumacher, T.N. Regulation and Function of the PD-L1 Checkpoint. Immunity. 2018, 48, 434-452. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2018.03.014.

64) Le, D.T.; Durham, J.N.; Smith, K.N.; Wang, H.; Bartlett, B.R.; Aulakh, L.K.; Lu, S.; Kemberling, H.; Wilt, C.; Luber, B.S.; et al. Mismatch repair deficiency predicts response of solid tumors to PD-1 blockade. Science. 2017, 357, 409-413. doi: 10.1126/science.aan6733.

65) O’Malley, D.; G.M. Bariani, G.M.; Cassier, P.A.; Marabelle, A.; Hansen, A.R.; De Jesus Acosta, A.; Miller, W.H. Jr; Safra, T.; Italiano, A.; Mileshkin, L.; et al. 795MO Pembrolizumab (pembro) in patients with microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) advanced endometrial cancer (EC): Updated results from KEYNOTE-158. Ann Oncol 2021, 32, S730-1. doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2021.08.1237

66) Corr, B.; Cosgrove, C.; Spinosa, D.; Guntupalli, S. Endometrial cancer: molecular classification and future treatments. BMJ Med. 2022, 1, e000152. doi: 10.1136/bmjmed-2022-000152.

67) Lujan, S.A.; Williams, J.S.; Kunkel. T.A. DNA Polymerases Divide the Labor of Genome Replication. Trends Cell Biol. 2016, 26, 640-654. doi: 10.1016/j.tcb.2016.04.012.

 

68) Johnson, R.E.; Klassen, R.; Prakash, L.; Prakash, S. A major role of DNA polymerase δ in replication of both the leading and lagging DNA strands. Molecular cell. 2015, 59,163-75.

 

69) Rayner, E.; van Gool, I.C.; Palles, C.; Kearsey, S.E.; Bosse, T.; Tomlinson, I.; Church, D.N. A panoply of errors: polymerase proofreading domain mutations in cancer. Nat Rev Cancer. 2016, 16, 71-81. doi: 10.1038/nrc.2015.12.

70) Church, D.N.; Stelloo, E.; Nout, R.A.; Valtcheva, N.; Depreeuw, J.; ter Haar, N.; Noske, A.; Amant, F.; Tomlinson, I.P.; Wild, P.; et al. Prognostic significance of POLE proofreading mutations in endometrial cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014;107(1):402. doi: 10.1093/jnci/dju402.

 

71) Meng, B.; Hoang, L.N.; McIntyre, J.B.; Duggan, M.A.; Nelson, G.S.; Lee, C.H.; Köbel, M. POLE exonuclease domain mutation predicts long progression-free survival in grade 3 endometrioid carcinoma of the endometrium. Gynecol Oncol. 2014, 134, 15-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.05.006.

 

72) McConechy, M.K.; Talhouk, A.; Leung, S.; Chiu, D.; Yang, W.; Senz, J.; Reha-Krantz, L.J.; Lee, C.H.; Huntsman, D.G.; Gilks, C.B.; et al. Endometrial Carcinomas with POLE Exonuclease Domain Mutations Have a Favorable Prognosis. Clin Cancer Res. 2016, 22, 2865-73. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-15-2233.

 

73) Piulats, J.M.; Guerra, E.; Gil-Martín, M.; Roman-Canal, B.; Gatius, S.; Sanz-Pamplona, R.; Velasco, A.; Vidal, A.; Matias-Guiu , X. Molecular approaches for classifying endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 2017, 145, 200-207. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2016.12.015.

74) Stelloo, E.; Nout, R.A.; Osse, E.M.; Jürgenliemk-Schulz, I.J.; Jobsen, J.J.; Lutgens, L.C.; van der Steen-Banasik, E.M.; Nijman, H.W.; Putter, H.; Bosse, T.; et al. Improved Risk Assessment by Integrating Molecular and Clinicopathological Factors in Early-stage Endometrial Cancer-Combined Analysis of the PORTEC Cohorts. Clin Cancer Res. 2016, 22, 4215-24. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-15-2878.

 

75) Plotkin, A.; Kuzeljevic, B.; De Villa, V.; Thompson, E.F.; Gilks, C.B.; Clarke, B.A.; Köbel, M.; McAlpine, J.N. Interlaboratory Concordance of ProMisE Molecular Classification of Endometrial Carcinoma Based on Endometrial Biopsy Specimens. Int. J. Gynecol. Pathol. 2020, 39, 537–545

 

76) Travaglino, A.; Raffone, A.; Mascolo, M.; Guida, M.; Insabato, L.; Zannoni, G.F.; Zullo, F. TCGA Molecular Subgroups in Endometrial Undifferentiated/Dedifferentiated Carcinoma. Pathol Oncol Res. 2020, 26, 1411-1416. doi: 10.1007/s12253-019-00784-0.

77) Rosa-Rosa, J.M.; Leskelä, S.; Cristóbal-Lana, E.; Santón, A.; López-García, M.Á.; Muñoz, G.; Pérez-Mies, B.; Biscuola, M.; Prat, J.; Oliva, E.; et al. Molecular genetic heterogeneity in undifferentiated endometrial carcinomas. Mod Pathol. 2016, 29, 1390-1398. doi: 10.1038/modpathol.2016.132. Erratum in: Mod Pathol. 2016, 29, 1594.

78) Zhang, K.; Liu,Y.; Liu, X.; Du, J.; Wang, Y.; Yang, J.; Li ,Y.; Liu, C. Clinicopathological significance of multiple molecular features in undifferentiated and dedifferentiated endometrial carcinomas. Pathology. 2021, 53, 179-186. doi: 10.1016/j.pathol.2020.07.015.

79) Santoro, A.; Angelico, G.; Travaglino, A.; Inzani, F.; Arciuolo, D.; Valente, M.; D'Alessandris, N.; Scaglione, G.; Fiorentino, V.; Raffone , A.; et al. New Pathological and Clinical Insights in Endometrial Cancer in View of the Updated ESGO/ESTRO/ESP Guidelines. Cancers (Basel). 2021, 13, 2623. doi: 10.3390/cancers13112623.

80) Taira, Y.; Shimoji, Y.; Arakaki, Y.; Nakamoto, T.; Kudaka, W.; Aoki, Y. Comprehensive Genomic Profiling for Therapeutic Decision and Identification of Gene Mutation in Uterine Endometrial Dedifferentiated Carcinoma. Case Rep Oncol. 2022, 15, 46-55. doi: 10.1159/000521897.

81) Travaglino, A.; Raffone ,A.; Gencarelli, A.; Saracinelli, S.; Riccardi, C.; Mollo, A.; Zullo, F.; Insabato, L. Clinico-pathological features associated with mismatch repair deficiency in endometrial undifferentiated/dedifferentiated carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Gynecol Oncol. 2021, 160, 579-585. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2020.11.015.

82) Kihara, A.; Amano, Y.; Matsubara, D.; Fukushima, N.; Fujiwara, H.; Niki, T. BRG1, INI1, and ARID1B Deficiency in Endometrial Carcinoma: A Clinicopathologic and Immunohistochemical Analysis of a Large Series From a Single Institution. Am J Surg Pathol. 2020, 44, 1712-1724. doi: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000001581.

83) Kuhn, E.; Ayhan, A.; Bahadirli-Talbott, A.; Zhao, C.; Shih, Ie M. Molecular characterization of undifferentiated carcinoma associated with endometrioid carcinoma. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2014, 38, 660–665. doi:10.1097/PAS.0000000000000166

84) Al-Hussaini, M.; Lataifeh I., Jaradat, I.; Abdeen, G.; Otay, L.; Badran ,O.; Abu Sheikha, A.; Dayyat, A.; El Khaldi, M.; Ashi Al-Loh, S. Undifferentiated Endometrial Carcinoma, an Immunohistochemical Study Including PD-L1Testing of a Series of Cases From a Single Cancer Center. Int. J. Gynecol. Pathol. 2018, 37, 564–574

 

85) Liu, X.; Liu, X., Wang, X.; Wu, R.; Zhang, K.; Liu, B.; Liu, Q.; Shao, Y.; Tang, R.; You J.; et al. A

 

86) Ono, R.; Nakayama, K.; Nakamura, K.; Yamashita, H.; Ishibashi, T.; Ishikawa, M.; Minamoto, T.; Razia, S.; Ishikawa, N.; Otsuki, Y.; et al. Dedifferentiated Endometrial Carcinoma Could be A Target for Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors (Anti PD-1/PD-L1 Antibodies). Int J Mol Sci. 2019, 20, 3744. doi: 10.3390/ijms20153744

87) Le, D.T.; Uram, J.N.; Wang , H.; Bartlett, B.R.; Kemberling, H.; Eyring , A.D.; Skora, A.D.; Luber, B.S.; Azad, N.S.; Laheru, D.; et al. PD-1 Blockade in Tumors with Mismatch-Repair Deficiency. N. Engl. J. Med. 2015, 372, 2509–2520. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1500596.

 

88) Overman, M.J.; McDermott, R.; Leach, J.L.; Lonardi, S.; Lenz, H.J.; Morse, M.A.; Desai, J.; Hill, A.; Axelson, M.; Moss, R.A.; et al. Nivolumab in patients with metastatic DNA mismatch repair-deficient or microsatellite instability-high colorectal cancer (CheckMate 142): An open-label, multicentre, phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol. 2017, 18, 1182–1191. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30422-9

 

89) Makker, V.; Taylor, M.H.; Aghajanian, C.; Oaknin, A.; Mier, J.; Cohn , A.L.; Romeo, M.; Bratos, R.; Brose M.S., DiSimone, C.; et al. Lenvatinib Plus Pembrolizumab in Patients With Advanced Endometrial Cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2020, 38, 2981–2992. doi:10.1200/JCO.19.02627

 

90) Oaknin, A.; Tinker, A.V.; Gilbert, L.; Samouëlian, V.; Mathews, C.; Brown, J.; Barretina-Ginesta, M.P.; Moreno, V.; Gravina, A.; Abdeddaim, C.; et al. Clinical Activity and Safety of the Anti-Programmed Death 1 Monoclonal Antibody Dostarlimab for Patients With Recurrent or Advanced Mismatch Repair-Deficient Endometrial Cancer: A Nonrandomized Phase 1 Clinical Trial. JAMA Oncol. 2020, 6, 1766–1772. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.4515

 

91) Espinosa, I.; D'Angelo, E.; Palacios, J.; Prat, J. Mixed and Ambiguous Endometrial Carcinomas: A Heterogenous Group of Tumors With Different Clinicopathologic and Molecular Genetic Features. Am J Surg Pathol. 2016;40(7):972-81. doi: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000000640.

92) Espinosa, I.; Lee, C.H.; D'Angelo, E.; Palacios, J.; Prat, J. Undifferentiated and Dedifferentiated Endometrial Carcinomas With POLE Exonuclease Domain Mutations Have a Favorable Prognosis. Am J Surg Pathol. 2017, 41, 1121-1128. doi: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000000873.

93) Concin, N.; Matias-Guiu, X.; Vergote, I.; Cibula, D.; Mirza, M.R.; Marnitz, S.; Ledermann, J.; Bosse, T.; Chargari, C.; Fagotti, A.; et al. ESGO/ESTRO/ESP guidelines for the management of patients with endometrial carcinoma. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2021, 31, 12-39. doi: 10.1136/ijgc-2020-002230.

 

94) Yu, S.; Sun, Z.; Zong, L.; Yan, J.; Yu, M.; Chen, J.; Lu, Z. Clinicopathological and molecular characterization of high-grade endometrial carcinoma with POLE mutation: a single center study. J Gynecol Oncol. 2022, 33, e38. doi: 10.3802/jgo.2022.33.e38.

 

95) Clapier, C.R.; Iwasa, J.; Cairns, B.R.; Peterson, C.L. Mechanisms of action and regulation of ATP-dependent chromatin-remodelling complexes. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2017, 18, 407-422. doi: 10.1038/nrm.2017.26.

 

96) Mathur, R.; Alver, B.H.; San Roman, A.K.; Wilson, B.G.; Wang, X.; Agoston, A.T.; Park, P.J.; Shivdasani, R.A.; Roberts, C.W. ARID1A loss impairs enhancer-mediated gene regulation and drives colon cancer in mice. Nat Genet. 2017, 49, 296-302. doi: 10.1038/ng.3744.

 

97) Varela, I.; Tarpey, P.; Raine, K.; Huang, D.; Ong, C.K.; Stephens, P.; Davies, H.; Jones, D.; Lin, M.L.; Teague, J.; et al. Exome sequencing identifies frequent mutation of the SWI/SNF complex gene PBRM1 in renal carcinoma. Nature. 2011, 469, 539-42. doi: 10.1038/nature09639. Erratum in: Nature. 2012, 484, 130.

 

98) Isakoff, M.S.; Sansam, C.G.; Tamayo, P.; Subramanian , A.; Evans, J.A.; Fillmore, C.M.; Wang, X.; Biegel, J.A.; Pomeroy, S.L.; Mesirov, J.P.; et al. Inactivation of the Snf5 tumor suppressor stimulates cell cycle progression and cooperates with p53 loss in oncogenic transformation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005, 102, 17745-50. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0509014102.

 

99) Hodges, H.C.; Stanton, B.Z.; Cermakova, K.; Chang, C.Y.; Miller, E.L.; Kirkland, J.G.; Ku, W.L.; Veverka, V.; Zhao, K.; Crabtree, G.R. Dominant-negative SMARCA4 mutants alter the accessibility landscape of tissue-unrestricted enhancers. Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2018, 25, 61-72. doi: 10.1038/s41594-017-0007-3.

 

100) Li, M.; Zhao, H.; Zhang, X.; Wood, L.D.; Anders, R.A.; Choti, M.A.; Pawlik, T.M.; Daniel, H.D.; Kannangai, R.; Offerhaus, G.J.; et al. Inactivating mutations of the chromatin remodeling gene ARID2 in hepatocellular carcinoma. Nat Genet. 2011, 43, 828-9. doi: 10.1038/ng.903.

 

101) Karnezis, A.N.; Hoang, L.N.; Coatham, M.; Ravn, S.; Almadani, N.; Tessier-Cloutier, B.; Irving, J.; Meng, B.; Li, X.; Chow, C.; et al. Loss of switch/sucrose non-fermenting complex protein expression is associated with dedifferentiation in endometrial carci-nomas. Mod Pathol. 2016, 29, 302–14

 

102) Tessier-Cloutier B, Coatham M, Carey M, Nelson GS, Hamilton S, Lum A, Soslow RA, Stewart CJ, Postovit LM, Köbel M, et al. SWI/SNF-deficiency defines highly aggressive undifferentiated endometrial carcinoma. J Pathol Clin Res. 2021;7(2):144–53

 

103)Hoang, L.N.; Lee, Y.S.; Karnezis, A.N.; Tessier-Cloutier, B.; Almandani, N.; Coatham, M.; Gilks, C.B.; Soslow, R.A.; Stewart, C.J.; Köbel, M.; et al. Immunophenotypic features of dedifferentiated endometrial carcinomainsights from BRG1/INI1-deficient tumors. Histopath.2016, 69, 560–9.https://doi.org/10.1111//his.1298925.

 

104) Ramalingam, P.; Croce, S.; McCluggage, W.G. Loss of expression of SMARCA4 (BRG1), SMARCA2 (BRM)and SMARCB1 (INI1) in undifferentiated carcinoma of the endometrium is not uncommon and is not always associated with rhabdoid morphology. Histopathology. 2017, 70, 359 66. doi: 10.1111/his.13091

 

105) Yang, C.; Wang, Y.; Sims, M.M.; He, Y.; Miller, D.D.; Pfeffer, L.M. Targeting the Bromodomain of BRG-1/BRM Subunit of the SWI/SNF Complex Increases the Anticancer Activity of Temozolomide in Glioblastoma. Pharmaceuticals (Basel). 2021, 14, 904. doi: 10.3390/ph14090904.

 

106) Xiao, L.; Parolia, A.; Qiao, Y.; Bawa, P.; Eyunni, S.; Mannan, R.; Carson, S.E.; Chang, Y.; Wang, X.; Zhang, Y.; et al. Targeting SWI/SNF ATPases in enhancer-addicted prostate cancer. Nature. 2022, 601, 434-439. doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-04246-z.

 

107) Rago, F.; Elliott, G.; Li, A.; Sprouffske, K.; Kerr, G.; Desplat, A.; Abramowski, D.; Chen, J.T.; Farsidjani, A.; Xiang, K.X.; et al. The Discovery of SWI/SNF Chromatin Remodeling Activity as a Novel and Targetable Dependency in Uveal Melanoma. Mol Cancer Ther. 2020, 19, 2186-2195. doi: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-19-1013.

 

108) Wu, C.; Lyu, J.; Yang, E.J.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, B.; Shim, J.S. Targeting AURKA-CDC25C axis to induce synthetic lethality in ARID1A-deficient colorectal cancer cells. Nat Commun. 2018, 9, 3212. doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-05694-4.

 

109) Gounder, M.; Schöffski, P.; Jones, R.L.; Agulnik, M.; Cote, G.M.; Villalobos, V.M.; Attia, S.; Chugh, R.; Chen, T.W.; Jahan, T.; et al. Tazemetostat in advanced epithelioid sarcoma with loss of INI1/SMARCB1: an international, open-label, phase 2 basket study. Lancet Oncol. 2020, 21, 1423-1432. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30451-4.

 

110) Murnyák, B.; Hortobágyi, T. Immunohistochemical correlates of TP53 somatic mutations in cancer. Oncotarget. 2016, 7, 64910-64920. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.

111) Hwang, H.J.; Nam, S.K.; Park, H.; Park, Y.; Koh, J.; Na, H.Y.; Kwak, Y.; Kim, W.H.; Lee, H.S. Prediction of TP53 mutations by p53 immunohistochemistry and their prognostic significance in gastric cancer. J Pathol Transl Med. 2020, 54, 378-386. doi: 10.4132/jptm.2020.06.01.

112) Sallman, D.A.; DeZern, A.E.; Garcia-Manero, G.; Steensma, D.P.; Roboz, G.J.; Sekeres, M.A.; Cluzeau, T.; Sweet, K.L.; McLemore, A.; McGraw, K.L.; et al. Eprenetapopt (APR-246) and Azacitidine in TP53-Mutant Myelodysplastic Syndromes. J Clin Oncol. 2021, 39, 1584-1594. doi: 10.1200/JCO.20.02341.

113) Embaby, A.; Kutzera, J.; Geenen, J.J.; Pluim, D.; Hofland, I.; Sanders, J.; Lopez-Yurda, M.; Beijnen, J.H.; Huitema, A.D.R.; Witteveen, P.O.; et al. WEE1 inhibitor adavosertib in combination with carboplatin in advanced TP53 mutated ovarian cancer: A biomarker-enriched phase II study. Gynecol Oncol. 2023, 174, 239-246. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2023.05.063.

Video Production Service