Vol 84, No 2 (2013)
ARTICLES

open access

Page views 791
Article views/downloads 1900
Get Citation

Connect on Social Media

Connect on Social Media

The value of progesterone and estrogen receptors expression in tissue microarray method in prognosis of patients with endometrioid endometrial cancer

Arkadiusz Jeziorski, Jacek Suzin, Wiesław Tyliński, Justyna Chałubińska-Fendler, Jarosław Szwalski, Michał Spych, Janusz Piekarski, Piotr Sęk, Robert Kubiak, Grażyna Pasz-Walczak, Leszek Gottwald
DOI: 10.17772/gp/1547
Ginekol Pol 2013;84(2).

Abstract

Objectives: To assess prognostic significance of progesterone receptors (PR) and estrogen receptors (ER) expression in the tissue microarray (TMA) technique for disease free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in endometrioid endometrial cancer (EEC). Material and methods: The study included 151 consecutive patients, aged 37-86 years (62.80±9.99), with the EEC in stages I-III (FIGO), treated surgically at the Pirogow Memorial Hospital of Lodz between 2000 and 2007. Afterwards, they were subsequently treated and examined at the Regional Cancer Center, Copernicus Memorial Hospital of Lodz. Tissue cores 2 mm in size, in duplicate, were taken from the formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded tissue donor blocks from surgery, and constructed into the TMA recipient blocks. Using TMAs, the expression of PR and ER was examined and presented as Total Score (TS). The TS was determined by adding the intensity and marker distribution scores in a given case. The relationship between PR and ER expression, DFS and OS was examined. DFS was defined as the period from primary surgery until relapse. OS was defined as the period from primary surgery until the end of the follow-up (60 months) or until the death of the patient. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Medical University of Lodz (RNN/82/11/KE). Results: Lack of the PR and ER expression was found in 46 cases (30.46%) and 67 cases (44.37%), respectively. The expression of the PR and ER was weak in 24 cases (15.89%) and 22 cases (14.57%), respectively. Strong PR and ER expression was found in 81 patients (53.65%) and 62 patients (41.06%), respectively. Follow-up after surgery varied from 3 to 60 months (50.95±16.36). In 30 patients (19.87%) relapse was diagnosed 1–54 months (22.17±15.59) after surgery. During follow-ups, 29 patients (19.21%) died. In univariate analysis better DFS was related to the presence of PR (p=0.010), higher TS of PR (HR=0.81; 95% CI 0.71-0.94), the presence of ER (p=0.001) and higher TS of ER (HR=0.88; 95% CI 0.78-0.99). DFS differed significantly between the groups: without PR and ER expression (A), with presence of the PR but not ER expression (B), with the ER but not PR expression (C) and with the PR and ER expression (D) (p=0.004). In univariate analysis OS was not related to PR expression (p=0.110), TS of PR (HR= 0.89; 95% CI 0.80-1.02) and ER expression (p=0.070). TS of ER was connected to better OS (HR= 0.83; 95%CI 0.72-0.96). The OS differed between groups A, B, C and D (p=0.006). In multivariate analysis variants of PR/ER expression influenced the DFS (p=0.039) and OS (p=0.016). Conclusions: The expression of the PR and ER can significantly affect therapeutic decisions in selected patients with EEC. In EEC, common assessment of PR and ER expression is of higher prognostic value, than compared to single evaluation of PR and ER receptors.

Article available in PDF format

View PDF Download PDF file