Estrogen/Progesterone Receptor Loss, CTNNB1 and KRAS Mutations Are Associated With Local Recurrence or Distant Metastasis in Low-Grade Endometrial Endometrioid Carcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A subset of endometrial endometrioid carcinomas (EECs) with low-grade histology recur with poor outcomes. Published evidence suggests that poor outcomes may be associated with loss of expression of ER-alpha (ER-α) as well as with β-Catenin-1 ( CTNNB1 ) and Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog ( KRAS ) mutations. This study reports on institutional experience with the incidence of recurrence in low-grade EEC and their association with CTNNB1 and KRAS mutations as well as estrogen/progesterone receptor (ER/PR) expression. Forty-eight (8.5%) out of 568 cases of low-grade EEC with biopsy-proven recurrence were identified; and were analyzed by immunohistochemistry for ER, PR, p53, MMR protein, and mutation analysis for exon 3 of the CTNNB1 and exon 2 of KRAS in relation to recurrence type, local or distant metastasis/recurrence. Twenty-three patients (4%) developed local, and 25 patients (4.4%) developed distant metastases/recurrence. Decreased expression or loss of ER/PR was found in 17/44 (38.6%) patients with recurrence. Eighty-four percent of patients with low-grade EEC and local recurrence had CTNNB1 mutations. Seventy-three percent of patients with distant metastasis/recurrence had KRAS mutations. The association of these mutations with the type of recurrence was statistically significant for both. Five cases with the morphology of low-grade EEC were reclassified as mesonephric-like carcinoma and were universally characterized by distant metastasis/recurrence, loss of ER/PR expression, large tumor size, absence of CTNNB1 mutations, and the presence of KRAS mutations. In low-grade EEC, CTNNB1 and KRAS mutations are associated with local recurrence and distant metastasis/recurrence, respectively, suggesting that these 2 different progression types may be conditioned by tumor genotype. ER/PR immunohistochemistry may be helpful in identifying poor performers in low-grade EEC. Furthermore, identification of the decreased expression or loss of ER/PR in tumors with low-grade histology should prompt consideration of mesonephric-like carcinoma, which is a more aggressive tumor than the low-grade EEC. KRAS mutations were associated with distant metastasis/recurrence in tumors with and without mesonephric-like phenotype.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".