Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Endometrioid ovarian cancers (EOvC) are usually managed as serous tumors. In this study, we conducted a comprehensive molecular investigation to uncover the distinct biological characteristics of EOvC. This retrospective multicenter study involved patients from three European centers. We collected clinical data and formalin‐fixed paraffin‐embedded (FFPE) samples for analysis at the DNA level using panel‐based next‐generation sequencing and array‐comparative genomic hybridization. Additionally, we examined mRNA expression using NanoString nCounter® and protein expression through tissue microarray. We compared EOvC with other ovarian subtypes and uterine endometrioid tumors. Furthermore, we assessed the impact of molecular alterations on patient outcomes, including progression‐free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Preliminary analysis of clinical data from 668 patients, including 86 (12.9%) EOvC, revealed more favorable prognosis for EOvC compared with serous ovarian carcinoma (5‐year OS of 60% versus 45%; P = 0.001) driven by diagnosis at an earlier stage. Immunohistochemistry and copy number alteration (CNA) profiles of 43 cases with clinical data and FFPE samples available indicated that EOvC protein expression and CNA profiles were more similar to endometrioid endometrial tumors than to serous ovarian carcinomas. EOvC exhibited specific alterations, such as lower rates of PTEN loss, mutations in DNA repair genes, and P53 abnormalities. Survival analysis showed that patients with tumors harboring loss of PTEN expression had worse outcomes (median PFS 19.6 months vs. not reached; P = 0.034). Gene expression profile analysis confirmed that EOvC differed from serous tumors. However, comparison to other rare subtypes of ovarian cancer suggested that the EOvC transcriptomic profile was close to that of ovarian clear cell carcinoma. Downregulation of genes involved in the PI3K pathway and DNA methylation was observed in EOvC. In conclusion, EOvC represents a distinct biological entity and should be regarded as such in the development of specific clinical approaches.
Nonneville et al. (Tue,) studied this question.