SpringerLink
Log in

Current Status of Molecular Biomarkers in Endometrial Cancer

  • Gynecologic Cancers (NS Reed, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Oncology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In spite of the high and increasing incidence of endometrial cancer, our current models for prediction of prognosis and even more treatment response are suboptimal, and molecular biomarkers to assist clinical decision making are needed. In this review an overview is given of the currently known as well as promising prognostic and predictive biomarkers in endometrial carcinoma. Key clinical challenges, where use of molecular biomarkers can meet clinical needs, are highlighted. The current status for the presently most promising prognostic and predictive biomarkers in endometrial carcinoma is reviewed. DNA ploidy, p53 status, hormone receptor level, HER2, stathmin, L1 cell adhesion molecule expression and other biomarkers are discussed in relation to the scientific robustness of various essential steps in biomarker development and (current) clinical applicability for individualizing treatment strategies. Tumour heterogeneity and its consequences for biomarker assessment and the importance of develo** standardised tests for implementation are discussed. To improve the development and clinical uptake of biomarkers, several strategies are proposed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance

  1. Wright JD, Barrena Medel NI, Sehouli J, Fujiwara K, Herzog TJ. Contemporary management of endometrial cancer. Lancet. 2012;379(9823):1352–60. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60442-5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Renehan AG, Tyson M, Egger M, Heller RF, Zwahlen M. Body-mass index and incidence of cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective observational studies. Lancet. 2008;371(9612):569–78. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60269-X.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Webb PM. Obesity and gynecologic cancer etiology and survival. In: 2013 educational book. Alexandria: American Society of Clinical Oncology; 2013. doi:10.1200/EdBook_AM.2013.33.e222.

  4. Duong LM, Wilson RJ, Ajani UA, Singh SD, Eheman CR. Trends in endometrial cancer incidence rates in the United States, 1999-2006. J Womens Health. 2011;20(8):1157–63. doi:10.1089/jwh.2010.2529.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Oza AM, Elit L, Tsao MS, Kamel-Reid S, Biagi J, Provencher DM, et al. Phase II study of temsirolimus in women with recurrent or metastatic endometrial cancer: a trial of the NCIC Clinical Trials Group. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(24):3278–85. doi:10.1200/JCO.2010.34.1578.

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Salvesen HB, Haldorsen IS, Trovik J. Markers for individualised therapy in endometrial carcinoma. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13(8):e353–61. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(12)70213-9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bokhman JV. Two pathogenetic types of endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 1983;15(1):10–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Dedes KJ, Wetterskog D, Ashworth A, Kaye SB, Reis-Filho JS. Emerging therapeutic targets in endometrial cancer. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2011;8(5):261–71. doi:10.1038/nrclinonc.2010.216.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Biomarkers Definitions Working G. Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: preferred definitions and conceptual framework. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2001;69(3):89–95. doi:10.1067/mcp.2001.113989.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Trovik J, Mauland KK, Werner HM, Wik E, Helland H, Salvesen HB. Improved survival related to changes in endometrial cancer treatment, a 30-year population based perspective. Gynecol Oncol. 2012;125(2):381–7. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.01.050.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Pelikan HM, Trum JW, Bakers FC, Beets-Tan RG, Smits LJ, Kruitwagen RF. Diagnostic accuracy of preoperative tests for lymph node status in endometrial cancer: a systematic review. Cancer Imaging. 2013;13(3):314–22. doi:10.1102/1470-7330.2013.0032.

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Yoon JH, Yoo SC, Kim WY, Chang SJ, Chang KH, Ryu HS. Para-aortic lymphadenectomy in the management of preoperative grade 1 endometrial cancer confined to the uterine corpus. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17(12):3234–40. doi:10.1245/s10434-010-1199-5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Benedetti Panici P, Basile S, Maneschi F, Alberto Lissoni A, Signorelli M, Scambia G, et al. Systematic pelvic lymphadenectomy vs. no lymphadenectomy in early-stage endometrial carcinoma: randomized clinical trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100(23):1707–16. doi:10.1093/jnci/djn397.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. group As, Kitchener H, Swart AM, Qian Q, Amos C, Parmar MK. Efficacy of systematic pelvic lymphadenectomy in endometrial cancer (MRC ASTEC trial): a randomised study. Lancet. 2009;373(9658):125–36. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61766-3.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. May K, Bryant A, Dickinson HO, Kehoe S, Morrison J. Lymphadenectomy for the management of endometrial cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;1, CD007585. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD007585.pub2.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Abu-Rustum NR, Alektiar K, Iasonos A, Lev G, Sonoda Y, Aghajanian C, et al. The incidence of symptomatic lower-extremity lymphedema following treatment of uterine corpus malignancies: a 12-year experience at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. Gynecol Oncol. 2006;103(2):714–8. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2006.03.055.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Pecorelli S. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the vulva, cervix, and endometrium. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009;105(2):103–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Abu-Rustum NR, Khoury-Collado F, Pandit-Taskar N, Soslow RA, Dao F, Sonoda Y, et al. Sentinel lymph node map** for grade 1 endometrial cancer: is it the answer to the surgical staging dilemma? Gynecol Oncol. 2009;113(2):163–9. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2009.01.003.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kim CH, Khoury-Collado F, Barber EL, Soslow RA, Makker V, Leitao Jr MM, et al. Sentinel lymph node map** with pathologic ultrastaging: a valuable tool for assessing nodal metastasis in low-grade endometrial cancer with superficial myoinvasion. Gynecol Oncol. 2013;131(3):714–9. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2013.09.027.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Ballester M, Koskas M, Coutant C, Chereau E, Seror J, Rouzier R, et al. Does the use of the 2009 FIGO classification of endometrial cancer impact on indications of the sentinel node biopsy? BMC Cancer. 2010;10:465. doi:10.1186/1471-2407-10-465.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Mariani A, Sebo TJ, Katzmann JA, Roche PC, Keeney GL, Lesnick TG, et al. Endometrial cancer: can nodal status be predicted with curettage? Gynecol Oncol. 2005;96(3):594–600. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2004.11.030.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Steinbakk A, Malpica A, Slewa A, Skaland I, Gudlaugsson E, Janssen EA, et al. Biomarkers and microsatellite instability analysis of curettings can predict the behavior of FIGO stage I endometrial endometrioid adenocarcinoma. Mod Pathol. 2011;24(9):1262–71. doi:10.1038/modpathol.2011.75.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Trovik J, Wik E, Stefansson I, Carter SL, Beroukhim R, Oyan AM, et al. Stathmin is superior to AKT and phospho-AKT staining for the detection of phosphoinositide 3-kinase activation and aggressive endometrial cancer. Histopathology. 2010;57(4):641–6. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2559.2010.03661.x.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Trovik J, Wik E, Werner HM, Krakstad C, Helland H, Vandenput I, et al. Hormone receptor loss in endometrial carcinoma curettage predicts lymph node metastasis and poor outcome in prospective multicentre trial. Eur J Cancer. 2013;49(16):3431–41. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2013.06.016.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Sood AK, Buller RE, Burger RA, Dawson JD, Sorosky JI, Berman M. Value of preoperative CA 125 level in the management of uterine cancer and prediction of clinical outcome. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;90(3):441–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Ambeba E, Linkov F. Advancements in the use of blood tests for cancer screening in women at high risk for endometrial and breast cancer. Future Oncol. 2011;7(12):1399–414. doi:10.2217/fon.11.127.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Antonsen SL, Hogdall E, Christensen IJ, Lydolph M, Tabor A, Loft Jakobsen A, et al. HE4 and CA125 levels in the preoperative assessment of endometrial cancer patients: a prospective multicenter study (ENDOMET). Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2013;92(11):1313–22. doi:10.1111/aogs.12235.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Staff AC, Trovik J, Eriksson AG, Wik E, Wollert KC, Kempf T, et al. Elevated plasma growth differentiation factor-15 correlates with lymph node metastases and poor survival in endometrial cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2011;17(14):4825–33. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-11-0715.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Alcazar JL, Jurado M. Three-dimensional ultrasound for assessing women with gynecological cancer: a systematic review. Gynecol Oncol. 2011;120(3):340–6. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2010.10.023.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Haldorsen IS, Berg A, Werner HM, Magnussen IJ, Helland H, Salvesen OO, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging performs better than endocervical curettage for preoperative prediction of cervical stromal invasion in endometrial carcinomas. Gynecol Oncol. 2012;126(3):413–8. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.05.009.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Haldorsen IS, Salvesen HB. Staging of endometrial carcinomas with MRI using traditional and novel MRI techniques. Clin Radiol. 2012;67(1):2–12. doi:10.1016/j.crad.2011.02.018.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Antonsen SL, Jensen LN, Loft A, Berthelsen AK, Costa J, Tabor A, et al. MRI, PET/CT and ultrasound in the preoperative staging of endometrial cancer - a multicenter prospective comparative study. Gynecol Oncol. 2013;128(2):300–8. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.11.025.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Engelsen IB, Stefansson IM, Akslen LA, Salvesen HB. GATA3 expression in estrogen receptor alpha-negative endometrial carcinomas identifies aggressive tumors with high proliferation and poor patient survival. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;199(5):543.e1-7. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2008.04.043.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Jongen V, Briet J, de Jong R, ten Hoor K, Boezen M, van der Zee A, et al. Expression of estrogen receptor-alpha and -beta and progesterone receptor-A and -B in a large cohort of patients with endometrioid endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2009;112(3):537–42. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.10.032.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Engelsen IB, Stefansson I, Akslen LA, Salvesen HB. Pathologic expression of p53 or p16 in preoperative curettage specimens identifies high-risk endometrial carcinomas. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;195(4):979–86. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2006.02.045.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Matias-Guiu X, Prat J. Molecular pathology of endometrial carcinoma. Histopathology. 2013;62(1):111–23. doi:10.1111/his.12053.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Garg K, Leitao Jr MM, Wynveen CA, Sica GL, Shia J, Shi W, et al. p53 overexpression in morphologically ambiguous endometrial carcinomas correlates with adverse clinical outcomes. Mod Pathol. 2010;23(1):80–92. doi:10.1038/modpathol.2009.153.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Pradhan M, Davidson B, Abeler VM, Danielsen HE, Trope CG, Kristensen GB, et al. DNA ploidy may be a prognostic marker in stage I and II serous adenocarcinoma of the endometrium. Virchows Arch. 2012;461(3):291–8. doi:10.1007/s00428-012-1275-2.

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Suehiro Y, Okada T, Okada T, Anno K, Okayama N, Ueno K, et al. Aneuploidy predicts outcome in patients with endometrial carcinoma and is related to lack of CDH13 hypermethylation. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14(11):3354–61. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-07-4609.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Susini T, Amunni G, Molino C, Carriero C, Rapi S, Branconi F, et al. Ten-year results of a prospective study on the prognostic role of ploidy in endometrial carcinoma: dNA aneuploidy identifies high-risk cases among the so-called ‘low-risk’ patients with well and moderately differentiated tumors. Cancer. 2007;109(5):882–90. doi:10.1002/cncr.22465.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Wik E, Trovik J, Iversen OE, Engelsen IB, Stefansson IM, Vestrheim LC, et al. Deoxyribonucleic acid ploidy in endometrial carcinoma: a reproducible and valid prognostic marker in a routine diagnostic setting. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;201(6):603.e1-7. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2009.07.029.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Wik E, Raeder MB, Krakstad C, Trovik J, Birkeland E, Hoivik EA, et al. Lack of estrogen receptor-alpha is associated with epithelial-mesenchymal transition and PI3K alterations in endometrial carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2013;19(5):1094–105. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-12-3039.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Mauland KK, Wik E, Salvesen HB. Clinical value of DNA content assessment in endometrial cancer. Cytom Part B. 2014;86(3):154–63. doi:10.1002/cyto.b.21164.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Risinger JI, Hayes K, Maxwell GL, Carney ME, Dodge RK, Barrett JC, et al. PTEN mutation in endometrial cancers is associated with favorable clinical and pathologic characteristics. Clin Cancer Res. 1998;4(12):3005–10.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Krakstad C, Trovik J, Wik E, Engelsen IB, Werner HM, Birkeland E, et al. Loss of GPER identifies new targets for therapy among a subgroup of ERalpha-positive endometrial cancer patients with poor outcome. Br J Cancer. 2012;106(10):1682–8. doi:10.1038/bjc.2012.91. Evaluation of hormone receptor status can potentially improve patient selection for endocrine treatment in endometrial cancer. This study shows that G-protein-coupled OR, an alternative OR, predicts poor survival in an OR-positive subgroup. The significant increase in biomarker loss from primary to metastatic disease may be important.

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Salvesen HB, Carter SL, Mannelqvist M, Dutt A, Getz G, Stefansson IM, et al. Integrated genomic profiling of endometrial carcinoma associates aggressive tumors with indicators of PI3 kinase activation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009;106(12):4834–9. doi:10.1073/pnas.0806514106.

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Urick ME, Rudd ML, Godwin AK, Sgroi D, Merino M, Bell DW. PIK3R1 (p85alpha) is somatically mutated at high frequency in primary endometrial cancer. Cancer Res. 2011;71(12):4061–7. doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-11-0549.

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Cheung LW, Hennessy BT, Li J, Yu S, Myers AP, Djordjevic B, et al. High frequency of PIK3R1 and PIK3R2 mutations in endometrial cancer elucidates a novel mechanism for regulation of PTEN protein stability. Cancer Discov. 2011;1(2):170–85. doi:10.1158/2159-8290.CD-11-0039.

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network. Integrated genomic characterization of endometrial carcinoma. Nature. 2013;497(7447):67–73. doi:10.1038/nature12113.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Lax SF, Kendall B, Tashiro H, Slebos RJ, Hedrick L. The frequency of p53, K-ras mutations, and microsatellite instability differs in uterine endometrioid and serous carcinoma: evidence of distinct molecular genetic pathways. Cancer. 2000;88(4):814–24.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Basil JB, Goodfellow PJ, Rader JS, Mutch DG, Herzog TJ. Clinical significance of microsatellite instability in endometrial carcinoma. Cancer. 2000;89(8):1758–64.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Catasus L, Gallardo A, Cuatrecasas M, Prat J. Concomitant PI3K-AKT and p53 alterations in endometrial carcinomas are associated with poor prognosis. Mod Pathol. 2009;22(4):522–9. doi:10.1038/modpathol.2009.5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Morrison C, Zanagnolo V, Ramirez N, Cohn DE, Kelbick N, Copeland L, et al. HER-2 is an independent prognostic factor in endometrial cancer: association with outcome in a large cohort of surgically staged patients. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(15):2376–85. doi:10.1200/JCO.2005.03.4827.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Tanaka Y, Terai Y, Kawaguchi H, Fujiwara S, Yoo S, Tsunetoh S, et al. Prognostic impact of EMT (epithelial-mesenchymal-transition)-related protein expression in endometrial cancer. Cancer Biol Ther. 2013;14(1):13–9. doi:10.4161/cbt.22625.

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Yi TZ, Guo J, Zhou L, Chen X, Mi RR, Qu QX, et al. Prognostic value of E-cadherin expression and CDH1 promoter methylation in patients with endometrial carcinoma. Cancer Investig. 2011;29(1):86–92. doi:10.3109/07357907.2010.512603.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Dutt A, Salvesen HB, Chen TH, Ramos AH, Onofrio RC, Hatton C, et al. Drug-sensitive FGFR2 mutations in endometrial carcinoma. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008;105(25):8713–7. doi:10.1073/pnas.0803379105.

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Byron SA, Gartside M, Powell MA, Wellens CL, Gao F, Mutch DG, et al. FGFR2 point mutations in 466 endometrioid endometrial tumors: relationship with MSI, KRAS, PIK3CA, CTNNB1 mutations and clinicopathological features. PLoS One. 2012;7(2):e30801. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0030801.

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Birkeland E, Wik E, Mjos S, Hoivik EA, Trovik J, Werner HM, et al. KRAS gene amplification and overexpression but not mutation associates with aggressive and metastatic endometrial cancer. Br J Cancer. 2012;107(12):1997–2004. doi:10.1038/bjc.2012.477.

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Stefansson IM, Salvesen HB, Akslen LA. Prognostic impact of alterations in P-cadherin expression and related cell adhesion markers in endometrial cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(7):1242–52. doi:10.1200/JCO.2004.09.034.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Fadare O, Renshaw IL, Liang SX. Does the loss of ARID1A (BAF-250a) expression in endometrial clear cell carcinomas have any clinicopathologic significance? A pilot assessment. J Cancer. 2012;3:129–36. doi:10.7150/jca.4140.

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Wiegand KC, Lee AF, Al-Agha OM, Chow C, Kalloger SE, Scott DW, et al. Loss of BAF250a (ARID1A) is frequent in high-grade endometrial carcinomas. J Pathol. 2011;224(3):328–33. doi:10.1002/path.2911.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Werner HM, Berg A, Wik E, Birkeland E, Krakstad C, Kusonmano K, et al. ARID1A loss is prevalent in endometrial hyperplasia with atypia and low-grade endometrioid carcinomas. Mod Pathol. 2013;26(3):428–34. doi:10.1038/modpathol.2012.174.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Trovik J, Wik E, Stefansson IM, Marcickiewicz J, Tingulstad S, Staff AC, et al. Stathmin overexpression identifies high-risk patients and lymph node metastasis in endometrial cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2011;17(10):3368–77. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-10-2412.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Zeimet AG, Reimer D, Huszar M, Winterhoff B, Puistola U, Azim SA, et al. L1CAM in early-stage type I endometrial cancer: results of a large multicenter evaluation. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013;105(15):1142–50. doi:10.1093/jnci/djt144. Although only published recently and so far in only one study, L1 cell adhesion molecule seems a very promising prognostic biomarker that may help to select those type 1 stage 1 endometrial cancer patients who need adjuvant treatment. Validation studies, also focused on the biological rationale, are needed.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Brennan DJ, Hackethal A, Metcalf AM, Coward J, Ferguson K, Oehler MK, et al. Serum HE4 as a prognostic marker in endometrial cancer–a population based study. Gynecol Oncol. 2014;132(1):159–65. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2013.10.036.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Nicklin J, Janda M, Gebski V, Jobling T, Land R, Manolitsas T, et al. The utility of serum CA-125 in predicting extra-uterine disease in apparent early-stage endometrial cancer. Int J Cancer. 2012;131(4):885–90. doi:10.1002/ijc.26433.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Mutz-Dehbalaie I, Egle D, Fessler S, Hubalek M, Fiegl H, Marth C, et al. HE4 is an independent prognostic marker in endometrial cancer patients. Gynecol Oncol. 2012;126(2):186–91. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.04.022.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Zanotti L, Bignotti E, Calza S, Bandiera E, Ruggeri G, Galli C, et al. Human epididymis protein 4 as a serum marker for diagnosis of endometrial carcinoma and prediction of clinical outcome. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2012;50(12):2189–98. doi:10.1515/cclm-2011-0757.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Schechter AL, Stern DF, Vaidyanathan L, Decker SJ, Drebin JA, Greene MI, et al. The neu oncogene: an erb-B-related gene encoding a 185,000-Mr tumour antigen. Nature. 1984;312(5994):513–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Food and Drug Administration. Drugs. http://www.fda.gov/Drugs (2014).

  71. DiMasi JA, Grabowski HG. Economics of new oncology drug development. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(2):209–16. doi:10.1200/JCO.2006.09.0803.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Dellinger TH, Monk BJ. Systemic therapy for recurrent endometrial cancer: a review of North American trials. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2009;9(7):905–16. doi:10.1586/era.09.54.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Hudis CA. Trastuzumab–mechanism of action and use in clinical practice. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(1):39–51. doi:10.1056/NEJMra043186.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Romond EH, Perez EA, Bryant J, Suman VJ, Geyer Jr CE, Davidson NE, et al. Trastuzumab plus adjuvant chemotherapy for operable HER2-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2005;353(16):1673–84. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa052122.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Schultz KR, Bowman WP, Aledo A, Slayton WB, Sather H, Devidas M, et al. Improved early event-free survival with imatinib in Philadelphia chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia: a children's oncology group study. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(31):5175–81. doi:10.1200/JCO.2008.21.2514.

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Lee Y, Shim HS, Park MS, Kim JH, Ha SJ, Kim SH, et al. High EGFR gene copy number and skin rash as predictive markers for EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors in patients with advanced squamous cell lung carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2012;18(6):1760–8. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-11-2582.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Vandenput I, Trovik J, Leunen K, Wik E, Stefansson I, Akslen L, et al. Evolution in endometrial cancer: evidence from an immunohistochemical study. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2011;21(2):316–22. doi:10.1097/IGC.0b013e31820575f5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Decruze SB, Green JA. Hormone therapy in advanced and recurrent endometrial cancer: a systematic review. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2007;17(5):964–78. doi:10.1111/j.1525-1438.2007.00897.x.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Mackay HJ, Eisenhauer EA, Kamel-Reid S, Tsao M, Clarke B, Karakasis K, et al. Molecular determinants of outcome with mammalian target of rapamycin inhibition in endometrial cancer. Cancer. 2013. doi:10.1002/cncr.28414. No combination of biomarkers was found to be predictive of mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor activity in this study using archival tissue from nearly 100 women with recurrent endometrial cancer. The authors call for caution in enriching trials for patients with certain biomarker characteristics.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Janku F, Wheler JJ, Westin SN, Moulder SL, Naing A, Tsimberidou AM, et al. PI3K/AKT/mTOR inhibitors in patients with breast and gynecologic malignancies harboring PIK3CA mutations. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(8):777–82. doi:10.1200/JCO.2011.36.1196.

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Werner HM, Trovik J, Halle MK, Wik E, Akslen LA, Birkeland E, et al. Stathmin protein level, a potential predictive marker for taxane treatment response in endometrial cancer. PLoS One. 2014;9(2):e90141. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0090141.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Meyer LA, Slomovitz BM, Djordjevic B, Westin SN, Iglesias DA, Munsell MF, et al. The search continues: looking for predictive biomarkers for response to Mammalian target of rapamycin inhibition in endometrial cancer. Int Gynecol Cancer. 2014;24(4):713–7. doi:10.1097/IGC.0000000000000118.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Fleming GF, Sill MW, Darcy KM, McMeekin DS, Thigpen JT, Adler LM, et al. Phase II trial of trastuzumab in women with advanced or recurrent, HER2-positive endometrial carcinoma: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Gynecol Oncol. 2010;116(1):15–20. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2009.09.025.

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. National Institutes of Health. NCT01237067. 2014. http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT01237067. Accessed Apr 2014.

  85. Nout RA, Bosse T, Creutzberg CL, Jurgenliemk-Schulz IM, Jobsen JJ, Lutgens LC, et al. Improved risk assessment of endometrial cancer by combined analysis of MSI, PI3K-AKT, Wnt/β-catenin and P53 pathway activation. Gynecol Oncol. 2012;126(3):466–73. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.05.012.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Alkushi A, Clarke BA, Akbari M, Makretsov N, Lim P, Miller D, et al. Identification of prognostically relevant and reproducible subsets of endometrial adenocarcinoma based on clustering analysis of immunostaining data. Mod Pathol. 2007;20(11):1156–65. doi:10.1038/modpathol.3800950.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Gerlinger M, Rowan AJ, Horswell S, Larkin J, Endesfelder D, Gronroos E, et al. Intratumor heterogeneity and branched evolution revealed by multiregion sequencing. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(10):883–92. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1113205.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Swanton C. Intratumor heterogeneity: evolution through space and time. Cancer Res. 2012;72(19):4875–82. doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-12-2217.

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Buza N, Hui P. Marked heterogeneity of HER2/NEU gene amplification in endometrial serous carcinoma. Genes Chromosomes Cancer. 2013. doi:10.1002/gcc.22113.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Soslow RA, Wethington SL, Cesari M, Chiappetta D, Olvera N, Shia J, et al. Clinicopathologic analysis of matched primary and recurrent endometrial carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2012;36(12):1771–81. doi:10.1097/PAS.0b013e318273591a.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Thompson AM, Jordan LB, Quinlan P, Anderson E, Skene A, Dewar JA, et al. Prospective comparison of switches in biomarker status between primary and recurrent breast cancer: the Breast Recurrence In Tissues Study (BRITS). Breast Cancer Res. 2010;12(6):R92. doi:10.1186/bcr2771.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Arslan C, Sari E, Aksoy S, Altundag K. Variation in hormone receptor and HER-2 status between primary and metastatic breast cancer: review of the literature. Expert Opin Ther Targets. 2011;15(1):21–30. doi:10.1517/14656566.2011.537260.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Khasraw M, Brogi E, Seidman AD. The need to examine metastatic tissue at the time of progression of breast cancer: is re-biopsy a necessity or a luxury? Curr Oncol Rep. 2011;13(1):17–25. doi:10.1007/s11912-010-0137-9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Simmons C, Miller N, Geddie W, Gianfelice D, Oldfield M, Dranitsaris G, et al. Does confirmatory tumor biopsy alter the management of breast cancer patients with distant metastases? Ann Oncol. 2009;20(9):1499–504. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdp028.

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Harris L, Fritsche H, Mennel R, Norton L, Ravdin P, Taube S, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology 2007 update of recommendations for the use of tumor markers in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(33):5287–312. doi:10.1200/JCO.2007.14.2364.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Lindstrom LS, Karlsson E, Wilking UM, Johansson U, Hartman J, Lidbrink EK, et al. Clinically used breast cancer markers such as estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 are unstable throughout tumor progression. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(21):2601–8. doi:10.1200/JCO.2011.37.2482.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Amir E, Clemons M, Purdie CA, Miller N, Quinlan P, Geddie W, et al. Tissue confirmation of disease recurrence in breast cancer patients: pooled analysis of multi-centre, multi-disciplinary prospective studies. Cancer Treat Rev. 2012;38(6):708–14. doi:10.1016/j.ctrv.2011.11.006.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Amir E, Miller N, Geddie W, Freedman O, Kassam F, Simmons C, et al. Prospective study evaluating the impact of tissue confirmation of metastatic disease in patients with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(6):587–92. doi:10.1200/JCO.2010.33.5232.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Parkinson DR, McCormack RT, Keating SM, Gutman SI, Hamilton SR, Mansfield EA, et al. Evidence of clinical utility: an unmet need in molecular diagnostics for patients with cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2014;20(6):1428–44. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-13-2961.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Simon R, Roychowdhury S. Implementing personalized cancer genomics in clinical trials. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2013;12(5):358–69. doi:10.1038/nrd3979.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Dancey JE, Dobbin KK, Groshen S, Jessup JM, Hruszkewycz AH, Koehler M, et al. Guidelines for the development and incorporation of biomarker studies in early clinical trials of novel agents. Clin Cancer Res. 2010;16(6):1745–55. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-09-2167.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. Duffy MJ, Crown J. Companion biomarkers: paving the pathway to personalized treatment for cancer. Clin Chem. 2013;59(10):1447–56. doi:10.1373/clinchem.2012.200477.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. Ioannidis JP, Panagiotou OA. Comparison of effect sizes associated with biomarkers reported in highly cited individual articles and in subsequent meta-analyses. JAMA. 2011;305(21):2200–10. doi:10.1001/jama.2011.713.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. McShane LM, Altman DG, Sauerbrei W, Taube SE, Gion M, Clark GM, et al. Reporting recommendations for tumor marker prognostic studies (REMARK). J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97(16):1180–4. doi:10.1093/jnci/dji237.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. Werner HM, Mills GB, Ram PT. Cancer systems biology: a peek into the future of patient care? Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2014;11(3):167–76. doi:10.1038/nrclinonc.2014.6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. Haldorsen IS, Stefansson I, Gruner R, Husby JA, Magnussen IJ, Werner HM, et al. Increased microvascular proliferation is negatively correlated to tumour blood flow and is associated with unfavourable outcome in endometrial carcinomas. Br J Cancer. 2014;110(1):107–14. doi:10.1038/bjc.2013.694. Functional imaging results exemplify the potential of advanced imaging to non-invasively and preoperatively identify a patient group with aggressive disease and poor survival. The results are well correlated with known immunohistochemistry parameters reflecting microvascular proliferation.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Sleijfer S, Bogaerts J, Siu LL. Designing transformative clinical trials in the cancer genome era. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(15):1834–41. doi:10.1200/JCO.2012.45.3639.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  108. de Bono JS, Ashworth A. Translating cancer research into targeted therapeutics. Nature. 2010;467(7315):543–9. doi:10.1038/nature09339.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  109. Schilsky RL, Doroshow JH, Leblanc M, Conley BA. Development and use of integral assays in clinical trials. Clin Cancer Res. 2012;18(6):1540–6. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-11-2202.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The European Network for Individualized Treatment in Endometrial Carcinoma (ENITEC) and the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO) are thanked for their support.

Compliance with Ethics Guidelines

ᅟ

Conflict of Interest

The authors report the following conflicts:

The University of Bergen/Haukeland University Hospital/Dana Farber Cancer Institute/Harvard University through Bergen Teknologioverføring AS (BTO) have an interest in some aspects relating to prognostic markers for endometrial cancer through (pending) intellectual property rights (US 12/962,946 and US 13/991,947).

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Clinical Science, University of Bergen, Jonas Liesvei 72, 5053, Bergen, Norway

    H. M. J. Werner & H. B. Salvesen

  2. Womens’ Clinic, Haukeland University Hospital, Jonas Liesvei 72, 5053, Bergen, Norway

    H. M. J. Werner & H. B. Salvesen

Authors
  1. H. M. J. Werner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. H. B. Salvesen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to H. M. J. Werner.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Gynecologic Cancers

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Werner, H.M.J., Salvesen, H.B. Current Status of Molecular Biomarkers in Endometrial Cancer. Curr Oncol Rep 16, 403 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11912-014-0403-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11912-014-0403-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation