Prognostic significance of estrogen and progesterone receptor expression in LNG-IUS (Mirena®) treatment of endometrial hyperplasia: an immunohistochemical study

Comparison of Mirena and Liletta levonorgestrel intrauterine devices for the treatment of endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia and grade 1 endometrioid endometrial cancer

Objective

Current standard nonsurgical management of endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia (EIN) and grade 1 endometrioid endometrial cancer (g1EEC) is the Mirena levonorgestrel intrauterine device (M-IUD). This retrospective study was designed primarily to determine noninferiority of the Liletta IUD (L-IUD) for pathologic regression of EIN and g1EEC compared to the M-IUD at 6 months of continuous use. Secondary objectives include to determine noninferiority as above at 3, 9, and 12 months of continuous use and to identify factors including DNA mismatch repair (MMR) status associated with pathologic regression after LNG-IUD use.

Methods

A retrospective observational study was performed with patients treated for EIN or g1EEC and managed continuously with M- or L-IUD. Patients with recent (within 6 months) or concurrent progesterone use were excluded. For the EIN group, the noninferiority margin of odds ratio was predetermined to be 0.58, and for the g1EEC group it was 0.64.

Results

62 patients from an academic center and a safety-net hospital were identified with continuous M-IUD (n = 44) or L-IUD (n = 18) use for EIN or g1EEC. 85% of patients treated with L-IUD were from a safety-net hospital, which had 63% with public insurance. At 3/6/9 months, 54/71/73% of patients with M-IUD and 80/83/100% with L-IUD had pathologic regression of EIN (95% confidence interval of estimated odds ratio 1.00-2.07/0.84-2.03/0.69-2.10). Lifetime smoking status, not MMR status, was significantly associated with pathologic regression.

Conclusions

L-IUD is an effective fertility-sparing treatment for EIN. L-IUD is noninferior to M-IUD for pathologic regression of EIN after 3,6, and 9 months. Further larger studies are warranted to validate findings in EIN and g1EEC.

Endometrial Cancer in Reproductive Age: Fertility-Sparing Approach and Reproductive Outcomes

Endometrial cancer is the most common gynecologic malignancy in developed countries and approximately 7% of the women with endometrial cancer are below the age of 45. Management of endometrial cancer in young women who desire to maintain fertility presents a unique set of challenges since the standard surgical treatment based on hysterectomy and salpingo-oophorectomy is often not compatible with the patient's goals. A fertility-preserving approach can be considered in selected patients with early stage and low-grade endometrial cancer. An increasing amount of data suggest that oncologic outcomes are not compromised if a conservative approach is utilized with close monitoring until childbearing is completed. If a fertility-preserving approach is not possible, assisted reproductive technologies can assist patients in achieving their fertility goals.

Characterisation of Levonorgestrel-Resistant Endometrial Cancer Cells

Background

Endometrial cancer (EC) is the most common gynaecologic malignancy in the developed world, and incidence is increasing in premenopausal women. The levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) is gaining traction as an alternative treatment for hyperplasia and early-stage EC for women who are unable to undergo surgery. Thirty to 60% of the women do not respond to this treatment, making the unknown mechanisms of levonorgestrel (LNG) resistance a critical obstacle for the conservative management of EC. This study aimed to characterise LNG-IUS treatment resistance in early-stage endometrial cancer in cell-line models.

Methods

LNG-resistant endometrial cancer cell lines (MFE296^R and MFE319^R) and cultures from three early stage endometrial cancer patients were developed. The behavioural profile of MFE296^R and MFE319^R was analysed using proliferation, adhesion, migration (wound healing and transwell) and invasion (spheroid) assays. LNG-sensitive cell lines (MFE296^S and MFE319^S) were compared to LNG^R cell lines (MFE296^R and MFE319^R). A literature search was conducted to identify possible candidate biomarkers of LNG resistance. RT-qPCR was used to analyse the mRNA expression of 17 candidate biomarkers in MFE296^R and MFE319^R. mRNA expression of the top differentially expressed genes was measured using RT-qPCR in primary cultures.

Results

LNG resistance did not affect proliferation or invasion in immortalised endometrial cancer cells. Transwell migration was significantly increased in MFE319^R cells (p=0.03). Cellular adhesion significantly decreased in both MFE296^R cells (p=0.012) and MFE319^R cells (p=0.04). mRNA expression of KLF4 and SATB2 was significantly amplified in MFE296^R and MFE319^R cells. mRNA expression of KLF4 was significantly upregulated LNG-resistant primary cell lines.

Conclusion

LNG-resistant cells may have more oncogenic potential than their LNG-sensitive counterparts. Significant changes in the mRNA expression of KLF4 and SATB2 of LNG-resistant cells is a promising preliminary result in biomarker discovery for guiding LNG-IUS treatment of early stage endometrial cancer.

Efficacy of the LNG-IUS for treatment of endometrial hyperplasia and early stage endometrial cancer: Can biomarkers predict response?

Endometrial Cancer (EC) is the most common gynaecologic malignancy in the developed world, and is increasing in premenopausal women. The surgical standard of care for early-stage EC is not possible in women with concurrent comorbidities or women who desire a fertility sparing approach. The Levonorgestrel Intrauterine System (LNG-IUS) is gaining traction as an alternative treatment for endometrial hyperplasia and early stage EC in inoperable women. Whilst early evidence appears promising, predictive biomarkers need to be established to determine non-responders, which make up one in three women. This timely review discusses the current literature around the identification of clinical, molecular and novel biomarkers that show potential to predict response to progesterone treatment, including the LNG-IUS.

Significance of progesterone receptors (PR-A and PR-B) expression as predictors for relapse after successful therapy of endometrial hyperplasia: a retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

After successful progestin therapy for endometrial hyperplasia (EH), the risk of relapse remains. We aimed to assess if immunohistochemical (IHC) expression of progesterone receptor isoforms, PR-A and PR-B, in endometrial glands and stroma in pre-treatment endometrial biopsies was related to relapse of EH.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Biopsy material originated from women with low-risk and medium-risk EH recruited to a recent Norwegian multicentre randomised trial. Participants (n = 153) had been treated for 6 months with three different progestin regimens.

POPULATION

One hundred and thirty-five of the 153 women achieved therapy response and underwent follow up for 24 months after therapy withdrawal. Fifty-five women relapsed during follow up. Pre-treatment endometrial biopsies from 94 of the 135 responding women were available for IHC staining.

METHODS

Immunohistochemical staining was performed separately for PR-A and PR-B and IHC expression was evaluated in endometrial glands and stroma by a histological score (H-score) using light microscopy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Immunohistochemical expression of PR-A and PR-B in endometrial glands and stroma in women with or without relapse of EH.

RESULTS

Low PR-A in endometrial glands (P = 0.013) and stroma (P < 0.001), and high PR-B in endometrial glands (P = 0.001) in pre-treatment endometrial biopsy have a statistically significant association with relapse of EH. Women with a pre-treatment ratio of PR-A:PR-B ≤ 1 have a higher risk of relapse (71%) compared with women with a ratio of PR-A:PR-B > 1 (19%; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Immunohistochemical expression of PR-A and PR-B in pre-treatment endometrial biopsy proves valuable as a predictor of relapse in EH.

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

Pre-treatment endometrial expression of PR-A and PR-B is a valuable predictor of relapse in endometrial hyperplasia.

Predictive ability of estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), COX-2, Mlh1, and Bcl-2 expressions for regression and relapse of endometrial hyperplasia treated with LNG-IUS: a prospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To test the predictive ability of immunohistochemical estrogen receptor(ER), progesterone receptor (PR), COX-2, Mlh1, and Bcl-2 expressions for predicting the outcomes of regression and relapse in women with endometrial hyperplasia treated with the Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS).

METHODS

We recruited prospectively all women diagnosed with complex or atypical complex hyperplasia that underwent treatment with LNG-IUS from August 1998 until September 2008. Immunohistochemistry was performed with conventional methods and recorded using a semi-quantitative score (Q score) by two blinded assessors. Women were followed with endometrial biopsies to record regression and relapse. The biomarker predictive ability was analysed using the Cox proportional hazards model.

RESULTS

The median follow-up was 72.1 months (IQR 59.1-89.8). The Q score agreement between assessors was 82.6% (K statistic=0.801 ± 0.036). The majority of study participants initially regressed to normal endometrium following LNG-IUS therapy (n = 164 regressed; n = 10 persisted). From the 164 women that regressed with LNG-IUS we were able to assess 152 women for relapse from which 18 relapsed. We found a weak association for persisted endometrial hyperplasia with ER and PR expressions with Q score on the 5th and 10th centiles. No associations were found for COX-2, Mlh1 and Bcl-2 protein expressions for regression and for any of the biomarkers for relapse.

CONCLUSION

We found that poor expression of ER and PR is weakly associated with persisting endometrial hyperplasia and COX-2, Mlh1, and Bcl-2 expressions are not predictive. None of the biomarkers is predictive for relapse in women with endometrial hyperplasia treated with LNG-IUS.

Biomarkers of progestin therapy resistance and endometrial hyperplasia progression

OBJECTIVE

We sought to identify biomarkers associated with progestin therapy resistance and persistence/progression of endometrial hyperplasia.

STUDY DESIGN

We performed a nested case-control study among women with complex (n = 73) and atypical (n = 41) hyperplasia treated with oral progestin, followed up 2-6 months for persistence/progression. We evaluated index endometrial protein expression for progesterone receptor isoform A, progesterone receptor isoform B (PRB), PTEN, Pax-2, and Bcl-2. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated.

RESULTS

Among women with atypical hyperplasia, high PRB expression was associated with 90% decreased risk of persistence/progression (95% CI, 0.01-0.8). High expression of progesterone receptor A and PRB suggested decreased risk of persistence/progression (odds ratio, 0.1; 95% CI, 0.02-1.0). These findings were not observed among women with complex hyperplasia. No associations were found with PTEN, Pax-2, and Bcl-2 protein expression.

CONCLUSION

PRB expression shows promise as a biomarker of progestin response. Further research is warranted to understand how PRB expression may guide treatment decisions.

Efficacy of oral or intrauterine device-delivered progestin in patients with complex endometrial hyperplasia with atypia or early endometrial adenocarcinoma: a meta-analysis and systematic review of the literature

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the efficacy of progestin treatment to achieve pathological complete response (pCR) in patients with complex atypical endometrial hyperplasia (CAH) or early endometrial adenocarcinoma (EC).

METHODS

A systematic search identified 3245 potentially relevant citations. Studies containing less than ten eligible CAH or EC patients in either oral or intrauterine treatment arm were excluded. Only information from patients receiving six or more months of treatment and not receiving other treatments was included. Weighted proportions of patients achieving pCR were calculated using R software.

RESULTS

Twelve studies met the selection criteria. Eleven studies reported treatment of patients with oral (219 patients, 117 with CAH, 102 with grade 1 Stage I EC) and one reported treatment of patients with intrauterine progestin (11 patients with grade 1 Stage IEC). Overall, 74% (95% confidence interval [CI] 65-81%) of patients with CAH and 72% (95% CI 62-80%) of patients with grade 1 Stage I EC achieved a pCR to oral progestin. Disease progression whilst on oral treatment was reported for 6/219 (2.7%), and relapse after initial complete response for 32/159 (20.1%) patients. The weighted mean pCR rate of patients with grade 1 Stage I EC treated with intrauterine progestin from one prospective pilot study and an unpublished retrospective case series from the Queensland Centre of Gynaecologic Oncology (QCGC) was 68% (95% CI 45-86%).

CONCLUSIONS

There is a lack of high quality evidence for the efficacy of progestin in CAH or EC. The available evidence however suggests that treatment with oral or intrauterine progestin is similarly effective. The risk of progression during treatment is small but longer follow-up is required. Evidence from prospective controlled clinical trials is warranted to establish how the efficacy of progestin for the treatment of CAH and EC can be improved further.