Unsupervised Clustering of Immunohistochemical Markers to Define High-Risk Endometrial Cancer
- 109 Downloads
Considerable heterogeneity exists in outcomes of early endometrial cancer (EC) according to the type but also the histological grading. Our goal was to describe the immunohistochemical profiles of type I EC according to grades and type II EC, to identify groups of interacting proteins using principal component analysis (PCA) and unsupervised clustering. We studied 13 immunohistochemical markers (steroid receptors, pro/anti-apoptotic proteins, metalloproteinases (MMP) and tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase (TIMP), and CD44 isoforms known for their role in endometrial pathology. Co-expressed proteins associated with the type, grade and outcome of EC were determined by PCA and unsupervised clustering. PCA identified three functional groups of proteins from 43 tissue samples (38 type I and 5 type II EC): the first was characterized by p53 expression; the second by MMPs, bcl-2, PR B and CD44v6; and the third by ER alpha, PR A, TIMP-2 and CD44v3. Unsupervised clustering found two main clusters of proteins, with both type I grade 3 and type II EC exhibiting the same cluster profile. PCA and unsupervised clustering of immunohistochemical markers in EC contribute to a better comprehension and classification of the disease.
KeywordsEndometrial cancer High-risk endometrial cancer Immunohistochemistry Unsupervised clustering Principal component analysis
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. For this type of study formal consent is not required.
- 12.Laas E, Ballester M, Cortez A et al (2014) Supervised clustering of immunohistochemical markers to distinguish atypical and non-atypical endometrial hyperplasia. Gynecol Endocrinol:1–4. https://doi.org/10.3109/09513590.2014.989981
- 13.Laas E, Ballester M, Cortez A et al (2014) Supervised clustering of immunohistochemical markers to distinguish atypical endometrial hyperplasia from grade 1 endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.02.018
- 16.Singh P, Smith CL, Cheetham G et al (2008) Serous carcinoma of the uterus-determination of HER-2/neu status using immunohistochemistry, chromogenic in situ hybridization, and quantitative polymerase chain reaction techniques: its significance and clinical correlation. Int J Gynecol Cancer 18:1344–1351. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1438.2007.01181.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Giangrande PH, McDonnell DP (1999) The a and B isoforms of the human progesterone receptor: two functionally different transcription factors encoded by a single gene. Recent Prog Horm Res 54:291–313 discussion 313-314Google Scholar
- 18.Wik E, Ræder MB, Krakstad C et al (2013) Lack of estrogen receptor-α is associated with epithelial-Mesenchymal transition and PI3K alterations in endometrial carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-12-3039
- 20.Lapi Nska-Szumczyk S, Supernat A, Majewska H et al (2014) HER2-positive endometrial cancer subtype carries poor prognosis. Clin Transl Sci. https://doi.org/10.1111/cts.12207
- 21.Hanekamp EE, Gielen SC, Smid-Koopman E et al (2003) Consequences of loss of progesterone receptor expression in development of invasive endometrial cancer. Clin Cancer Res 9:4190–4199Google Scholar
- 29.Tashiro H, Isacson C, Levine R et al (1997) p53 gene mutations are common in uterine serous carcinoma and occur early in their pathogenesis. Am J Pathol 150:177–185Google Scholar
- 33.Mitselou A, Ioachim E, Kitsou E et al (2003) Immunohistochemical study of apoptosis-related Bcl-2 protein and its correlation with proliferation indices (Ki67, PCNA), tumor suppressor genes (p53, pRb), the oncogene c-erbB-2, sex steroid hormone receptors and other clinicopathological features, in normal, hyperplastic and neoplastic endometrium. In Vivo 17:469–477Google Scholar
- 40.Hussein YR, Weigelt B, Levine DA et al (2014) Clinicopathological analysis of endometrial carcinomas harboring somatic POLE exonuclease domain mutations. Mod Pathol. https://doi.org/10.1038/modpathol.2014.143
- 41.Uzan C, Cortez A, Dufournet C et al (2004) Eutopic endometrium and peritoneal, ovarian and bowel endometriotic tissues express a different profile of matrix metalloproteinases-2, −3 and −11, and of tissue inhibitor metalloproteinases-1 and -2. Virchows Arch 445:603–609. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-004-1117-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 44.Moser PL, Kieback DG, Hefler L et al (1999) Immunohistochemical detection of matrix metalloproteinases (MMP) 1 and 2, and tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase 2 (TIMP 2) in stage IB cervical cancer. Anticancer Res 19:4391–4393Google Scholar
- 52.Wang Y, Ma X, Xi C et al (2013) Correlation between estrogen receptor status and clinicopathologic parameters in endometrial cancer: a comparative study by immunohistochemistry using different scoring systems. Zhonghua Bing Li Xue Za Zhi 42:509–514Google Scholar
- 53.Qureshi A, Pervez S (2010) Allred scoring for ER reporting and it’s impact in clearly distinguishing ER negative from ER positive breast cancers. J Pak Med Assoc 60:350–353Google Scholar