Identification of prognostically relevant and reproducible subsets of endometrial adenocarcinoma based on clustering analysis of immunostaining data

Panels of immunomarkers can provide greater information than single markers, but the problem of how to optimally interpret data from multiple immunomarkers is unresolved. We examined the expression profile of 12 immunomarkers in 200 endometrial carcinomas using a tissue microarray. The outcomes of groups of patients were analyzed by using the Kaplan–Meier method, using the log-rank statistic for comparison of survival curves. Correlation between clustering results and traditional prognosticators of endometrial carcinoma was examined by either Fisher's exact test or χ2-test. Multivariate analysis was performed using a proportional hazards method (Cox regression modeling). Seven of the 12 immunomarkers studied showed prognostic significance in univariate analysis (P<0.05) and 1 marker showed a trend toward significance (P=0.06). These eight markers were used in unsupervised hierarchical clustering of the cases, and resulted in identification of three cluster groups. There was a statistically significant difference in patient survival between these cluster groups (P=0.0001). The prognostic significance of the cluster groups was independent of tumor stage and patient age on multivariate analysis (P=0.014), but was not of independent significance when either tumor grade or cell type was added to the model. The cluster group designation was strongly correlated with tumor grade, stage, and cell type (P<0.0001 for each). Interlaboratory reproducibility of subclassification of endometrial adenocarcinoma by hierarchical clustering analysis was verified by showing highly reproducible assignment of individual cases to specific cluster groups when the immunostaining was performed, interpreted, and clustered in a second laboratory (κ=0.79, concordance rate=89.6%). Unsupervised hierarchical clustering of immunostaining data identifies prognostically relevant subsets of endometrial adenocarcinoma. Such analysis is reproducible, showing less interobserver variability than histopathological assessment of tumor cell type or grade.

[1]  R. Tibshirani,et al.  Repeated observation of breast tumor subtypes in independent gene expression data sets , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[2]  M. Sherman,et al.  Uterine Serous Carcinoma A Morphologically Diverse Neoplasm With Unifying Clinicopathologic Features , 1992, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[3]  R. Kurman,et al.  A dualistic model for endometrial carcinogenesis based on immunohistochemical and molecular genetic analyses. , 1997, Verhandlungen der Deutschen Gesellschaft fur Pathologie.

[4]  A. L. Nielsen,et al.  Evaluation of the reproducibility of the revised 1988 international federation of gynecology and obstetrics grading system of endometrial cancers with special emphasis on nuclear grading , 1991, Cancer.

[5]  H. Watari,et al.  Bcl‐2 expression and prognosis of patients with endometrial carcinoma , 1998, International journal of cancer.

[6]  R. Bast,et al.  Overexpression of HER-2/neu in endometrial cancer is associated with advanced stage disease. , 1991 .

[7]  A. Lindgren,et al.  Carcinoma of the endometrium: do the nuclear grade and DNA ploidy provide more prognostic information than do the FIGO and WHO classifications? , 1996, International journal of gynecological pathology : official journal of the International Society of Gynecological Pathologists.

[8]  Matt van de Rijn,et al.  Tissue Microarrays Are an Effective Quality Assurance Tool for Diagnostic Immunohistochemistry , 2002, Modern Pathology.

[9]  N. Ordóñez Role of immunohistochemistry in distinguishing epithelial peritoneal mesotheliomas from peritoneal and ovarian serous carcinomas. , 1998, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[10]  G. Ball,et al.  High‐throughput protein expression analysis using tissue microarray technology of a large well‐characterised series identifies biologically distinct classes of breast cancer confirming recent cDNA expression analyses , 2005, International journal of cancer.

[11]  M. Koshiyama,et al.  Two kinds of endometrial neoplasia arising from different origins in the uterine corpus: comparison of p53 expression and sex steroid receptor status. , 2002, European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology.

[12]  S. Yoshida,et al.  Loss of PTEN expression followed by Akt phosphorylation is a poor prognostic factor for patients with endometrial cancer. , 2003, Endocrine-related cancer.

[13]  Yudong D. He,et al.  Gene expression profiling predicts clinical outcome of breast cancer , 2002, Nature.

[14]  Carlos Caldas,et al.  Molecular Classification of Breast Carcinomas Using Tissue Microarrays , 2003, Diagnostic molecular pathology : the American journal of surgical pathology, part B.

[15]  M. Sherman Theories of Endometrial Carcinogenesis: A Multidisciplinary Approach , 2000, Modern Pathology.

[16]  A. García,et al.  Molecular pathology of endometrial hyperplasia and carcinoma. , 2001, Human pathology.

[17]  R. Tibshirani,et al.  Semi-Supervised Methods to Predict Patient Survival from Gene Expression Data , 2004, PLoS biology.

[18]  Jaime Prat,et al.  Prognostic parameters of endometrial carcinoma. , 2004, Human pathology.

[19]  A. Dursun,et al.  Angiogenesis, p53, and bcl‐2 Expression as Prognostic Indicators in Endometrial Cancer: Comparison with Traditional Clinicopathologic Variables , 2003, International journal of gynecological pathology : official journal of the International Society of Gynecological Pathologists.

[20]  Michael Peacock,et al.  Hierarchical Clustering Analysis of Tissue Microarray Immunostaining Data Identifies Prognostically Significant Groups of Breast Carcinoma , 2004, Clinical Cancer Research.

[21]  H. Homesley,et al.  Steroid receptor concentrations in endometrial carcinoma: effect on survival in surgically staged patients. , 1993, Gynecologic oncology.

[22]  A. Berchuck,et al.  PTEN mutation in endometrial cancers is associated with favorable clinical and pathologic characteristics. , 1998, Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research.

[23]  D. O'connor,et al.  An analysis of two versus three grades for endometrial carcinoma. , 1999, Gynecologic oncology.

[24]  S. Kalloger,et al.  Description of a Novel System for Grading of Endometrial Carcinoma and Comparison With Existing Grading Systems , 2005, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[25]  R. Slebos,et al.  The frequency of p53, k‐ras mutations, and microsatellite instability differs in uterine endometrioid and serous carcinoma , 2000, Cancer.

[26]  D. Botstein,et al.  Diversity of gene expression in adenocarcinoma of the lung , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[27]  Taylor Murray,et al.  Cancer statistics, 2000 , 2000, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[28]  R. Kurman,et al.  A Binary Architectural Grading System for Uterine Endometrial Endometrioid Carcinoma Has Superior Reproducibility Compared With FIGO Grading and Identifies Subsets of Advance-Stage Tumors With Favorable and Unfavorable Prognosis , 2000, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[29]  Ash A. Alizadeh,et al.  Distinct types of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma identified by gene expression profiling , 2000, Nature.

[30]  M. Rijn,et al.  Immunoprofile of cervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas using a tissue microarray , 2003, Virchows Archiv.

[31]  C. Gilks,et al.  Markers of Proliferative Activity Are Predictors of Patient Outcome for Low-Grade Endometrioid Adenocarcinoma But Not Papillary Serous Carcinoma of Endometrium , 2002, Modern Pathology.

[32]  C. Sotiriou,et al.  Molecular classification of breast carcinomas by immunohistochemistry (IHC) using the tissue microarrays (TMA): new subtypes with clinical relevance? , 2004 .

[33]  D. Huntsman,et al.  Interpretation of p53 Immunoreactivity in Endometrial Carcinoma: Establishing a Clinically Relevant Cut-Off Level , 2004, International journal of gynecological pathology : official journal of the International Society of Gynecological Pathologists.

[34]  M. Jacobsen,et al.  Interobserver agreement for tumour type, grade of differentiation and stage in endometrial carcinomas , 1995, APMIS : acta pathologica, microbiologica, et immunologica Scandinavica.

[35]  P. Roche,et al.  Molecular and cytokinetic pretreatment risk assessment in endometrial carcinoma. , 2000, Gynecologic oncology.

[36]  C. Gilks,et al.  Growth Factor Independence-1 Is Expressed in Primary Human Neuroendocrine Lung Carcinomas and Mediates the Differentiation of Murine Pulmonary Neuroendocrine Cells , 2004, Cancer Research.

[37]  P. Schwartz,et al.  Immunohistochemical evaluation of estrogen and progesterone receptor content in 183 patients with endometrial carcinoma. Part II: Correlation between biochemical and immunohistochemical methods and survival. , 1990, American journal of clinical pathology.

[38]  M. Carcangiu,et al.  Uterine papillary serous carcinoma: a study on 108 cases with emphasis on the prognostic significance of associated endometrioid carcinoma, absence of invasion, and concomitant ovarian carcinoma. , 1992, Gynecologic oncology.

[39]  W. van Putten,et al.  Prognostic significance and interobserver variability of histologic grading systems for endometrial carcinoma , 2004, Cancer.

[40]  B. Goff Uterine papillary serous carcinoma: what have we learned over the past quarter century? , 2005, Gynecologic Oncology.

[41]  E. Lerma,et al.  Uterine papillary serous adenocarcinoma. A 10‐case study of p53 and c‐erbB‐2 expression and DNA content , 1994, Cancer.

[42]  M. Rue,et al.  Immunohistochemical analysis of PTEN in endometrial carcinoma: a tissue microarray study with a comparison of four commercial antibodies in correlation with molecular abnormalities , 2005, Modern Pathology.

[43]  D. Botstein,et al.  Cluster analysis and display of genome-wide expression patterns. , 1998, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[44]  Peter Devilee,et al.  Pathology and Genetics of Tumours of the Breast and Female Genital Organs , 2003 .

[45]  D. Clarke-Pearson,et al.  Overexpression of HER‐2/neu in endometrial cancer is associated with advanced stage disease , 1991, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[46]  J. V. Bokhman Two pathogenetic types of endometrial carcinoma. , 1983, Gynecologic oncology.

[47]  Ash A. Alizadeh,et al.  Software tools for high-throughput analysis and archiving of immunohistochemistry staining data obtained with tissue microarrays. , 2002, The American journal of pathology.

[48]  E. Israels,et al.  The Cell Cycle , 2007 .

[49]  C Blake Gilks,et al.  Assessment of interlaboratory variation in the immunohistochemical determination of estrogen receptor status using a breast cancer tissue microarray. , 2002, American journal of clinical pathology.

[50]  R. Kurman,et al.  The utility of the revised International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics histologic grading of endometrial adenocarcinoma using a defined nuclear grading system. A gynecologic oncology group study , 1995, Cancer.

[51]  E. Siegel,et al.  Amplification of c‐erbB2 oncogene , 2005, Cancer.

[52]  A. Gown,et al.  p63 Expression in Lung Carcinoma: A Tissue Microarray Study of 408 Cases , 2004, Applied immunohistochemistry & molecular morphology : AIMM.

[53]  Daniel Birnbaum,et al.  Protein expression profiling identifies subclasses of breast cancer and predicts prognosis. , 2005, Cancer research.

[54]  M. Cronin,et al.  A multigene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, node-negative breast cancer. , 2004, The New England journal of medicine.

[55]  B. Naylor,et al.  The Uterine Corpus , 1992 .