Gynecologic oncology · 2021
Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and POLE mutation in endometrial carcinoma.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Raffone Antonio, Travaglino Antonio, Raimondo Diego, Boccellino Maria Pia, Maletta Manuela, Borghese Giulia, Casadio Paolo, Insabato Luigi, Mollo Antonio, Zullo Fulvio, Seracchioli Renato
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Polymerase-ε (POLE)-mutated endometrial carcinomas (ECs) have displayed an increased number of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL) compared to POLE-wild-type ECs. However, it is unclear if TIL may aid in identifying POLE-mutated ECs when molecular data are unavailable. The identification of a POLE mutation surrogate may be crucial to translate TCGA/ProMisE risk assessment in the clinical practice.
AIM: To assess TIL as histological surrogate of POLE mutation in EC.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seven electronic databases were searched from their inception to September 2020 for studies that allowed data extraction about TIL and TCGA/ProMisE groups of EC. We calculated pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR+ and LR-), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) and area under the curve (AUC) on SROC curves of TIL in distinguishing POLE-mutated from i) POLE-wild-type, ii) no specific molecular profile (NSMP), iii) POLE-wild-type/MMR-proficient, iii) MMR-deficient ECs.
RESULTS: 10 studies assessing 1169 women were included in the qualitative analysis. TIL-high pattern showed: sensitivity = 0.65, specificity = 0.63, LR + =2.06, LR- = 0.48, DOR = 4.39, AUC = 0.7532 for POLE-mutant vs POLE-wild-type ECs; sensitivity = 0.85, specificity = 0.73, LR + =2.80, LR- = 0.22, DOR = 15.17 for POLE-mutant vs NSMP ECs; sensitivity = 0.85, specificity = 0.66, LR + =2.49, LR- = 0.25, DOR = 10.30 for POLE-mutant vs POLE-wild-type/MMR-proficient ECs; sensitivity = 0.68, specificity = 0.44, LR + =1.38, LR- = 0.64, DOR = 2.68, AUC = 0.6694 for POLE-mutant vs MMR-deficient ECs.
CONCLUSION: TIL-high pattern shows a moderate accuracy in distinguishing POLE-mutated from POLE-wild-type ECs after the exclusion of MMR-deficient cases. TIL might be considered in an integrate algorithm to identify POLE-mutated ECs when sequencing is unavailable. Further studies are necessary in this regard.
AIM: To assess TIL as histological surrogate of POLE mutation in EC.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seven electronic databases were searched from their inception to September 2020 for studies that allowed data extraction about TIL and TCGA/ProMisE groups of EC. We calculated pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR+ and LR-), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) and area under the curve (AUC) on SROC curves of TIL in distinguishing POLE-mutated from i) POLE-wild-type, ii) no specific molecular profile (NSMP), iii) POLE-wild-type/MMR-proficient, iii) MMR-deficient ECs.
RESULTS: 10 studies assessing 1169 women were included in the qualitative analysis. TIL-high pattern showed: sensitivity = 0.65, specificity = 0.63, LR + =2.06, LR- = 0.48, DOR = 4.39, AUC = 0.7532 for POLE-mutant vs POLE-wild-type ECs; sensitivity = 0.85, specificity = 0.73, LR + =2.80, LR- = 0.22, DOR = 15.17 for POLE-mutant vs NSMP ECs; sensitivity = 0.85, specificity = 0.66, LR + =2.49, LR- = 0.25, DOR = 10.30 for POLE-mutant vs POLE-wild-type/MMR-proficient ECs; sensitivity = 0.68, specificity = 0.44, LR + =1.38, LR- = 0.64, DOR = 2.68, AUC = 0.6694 for POLE-mutant vs MMR-deficient ECs.
CONCLUSION: TIL-high pattern shows a moderate accuracy in distinguishing POLE-mutated from POLE-wild-type ECs after the exclusion of MMR-deficient cases. TIL might be considered in an integrate algorithm to identify POLE-mutated ECs when sequencing is unavailable. Further studies are necessary in this regard.