J Pathol Transl Med.  2018 Mar;52(2):93-97. 10.4132/jptm.2017.11.29.

Myoferlin Expression and Its Correlation with FIGO Histologic Grading in Early-Stage Endometrioid Carcinoma

• Kim MH
• Song DH
• Ko GH
• Lee JH
• Kim DC
• Yang JW
• Lee HI
• An HJ
• Lee JS

• KMID: 2408509
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4132/jptm.2017.11.29

Abstract

BACKGROUND
For endometrioid carcinoma patients, International Federation of Gynecologists and Obstetricians (FIGO) histologic grading is very important for identifying the appropriate treatment method. However, the interobserver discrepancy with this three-tiered grading system is a serious potential problem. In this study, we used immunohistochemistry to analyze the relationship between FIGO histologic grading score and myoferlin expression.
METHODS
We studied the endometrioid carcinoma tissues of 60 patients from Gyeongsang National University Hospital between January 2002 and December 2009. Immunohistochemical analysis of myoferlin was performed on tissue microarray blocks from surgical specimens.
RESULTS
Myoferlin expression was observed in 58 of 60 patients. Moderate and strong myoferlin expression was observed in low-grade endometrioid carcinoma, while there was a tendency toward loss of myoferlin expression in high-grade endometrioid carcinoma (p < .001).
CONCLUSIONS
Our study revealed that myoferlin loss is significantly correlated with high FIGO grade of endometrioid carcinoma.

Keyword

Myoferlin protein; Carcinoma, Endometrioid; FIGO grade; Immunohistochemistry; Chemotherapy

MeSH Terms

Carcinoma, Endometrioid*
Drug Therapy
Humans
Immunohistochemistry
Methods

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1. Myoferlin expression in nontumorous endometrial tissue in proliferative phase (A) and secretory phase (B). (C) Loss of myoferlin expression in high-grade endometrioid carcinoma. Weak (+1, International Federation of Gynecologists and Obstetricians [FIGO] grade 3) (D), moderate (+2, FIGO grade 2) (E), and strong (+3, FIGO grade 1) (F) expression of myoferlin in endometrioid carcinoma.

Reference

1. Dvalishvili I, Charkviani L, Turashvili G, Burkadze G. Clinical characteristics of prognostic factors in uterine endometrioid adenocarcinoma of various grade. Georgian Med News. 2006; (132):24–7.

2. Zaki MA, Robbins JR, Fatteh S, Mahan MG, Hanna RK, Elshaikh MA. Histological grade predicts for recurrence in patients with uterine endometrioid carcinoma without myometrial involvement. Anticancer Res. 2012; 32:4061–5.

3. Creasman WT, Odicino F, Maisonneuve P, et al. Carcinoma of the corpus uteri. FIGO 26th Annual Report on the Results of Treatment in Gynecological Cancer. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2006; 95 Suppl 1:S105–43.

4. Apostolou G, Apostolou N, Biteli M, Kavantzas N, Patsouris E, Athanassiadou P. Utility of Ki-67, p53, Bcl-2, and Cox-2 biomarkers for low-grade endometrial cancer and disordered proliferative/benign hyperplastic endometrium by imprint cytology. Diagn Cytopathol. 2014; 42:134–42.

5. Daniilidou K, Frangou-Plemenou M, Grammatikakis J, Grigoriou O, Vitoratos N, Kondi-Pafiti A. Prognostic significance and diagnostic value of PTEN and p53 expression in endometrial carcinoma: a retrospective clinicopathological and immunohistochemical study. J BUON. 2013; 18:195–201.

6. Kounelis S, Kapranos N, Kouri E, Coppola D, Papadaki H, Jones MW. Immunohistochemical profile of endometrial adenocarcinoma: a study of 61 cases and review of the literature. Mod Pathol. 2000; 13:379–88.

7. Abdalla N, Piorkowski R, Stanirowski P, Slomka A, Cendrowski K, Sawicki W. Assessment of levels of the tumor markers HE4 and CA125 considering staging, grading and histological types of endometrial cancer. Prz Menopauzalny. 2016; 15:133–7.

8. Coenegrachts L, Schrauwen S, Van Bree R, et al. Increased expression of placental growth factor in high-grade endometrial carcinoma. Oncol Rep. 2013; 29:413–8.

9. Kashima H, Wu RC, Wang Y, et al. Laminin C1 expression by uterine carcinoma cells is associated with tumor progression. Gynecol Oncol. 2015; 139:338–44.

10. Guan H, Semaan A, Bandyopadhyay S, et al. Prognosis and reproducibility of new and existing binary grading systems for endometrial carcinoma compared to FIGO grading in hysterectomy specimens. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2011; 21:654–60.

11. Kapucuoglu N, Bulbul D, Tulunay G, Temel MA. Reproducibility of grading systems for endometrial endometrioid carcinoma and their relation with pathologic prognostic parameters. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2008; 18:790–6.

12. Leung C, Yu C, Lin MI, Tognon C, Bernatchez P. Expression of myoferlin in human and murine carcinoma tumors: role in membrane repair, cell proliferation, and tumorigenesis. Am J Pathol. 2013; 182:1900–9.

13. Blomme A, Costanza B, de Tullio P, et al. Myoferlin regulates cellular lipid metabolism and promotes metastases in triple-negative breast cancer. Oncogene. 2017; 36:2116–30.

14. Song DH, Ko GH, Lee JH, et al. Myoferlin expression in non-small cell lung cancer: prognostic role and correlation with VEGFR-2 expression. Oncol Lett. 2016; 11:998–1006.

15. Kumar B, Brown NV, Swanson BJ, et al. High expression of myoferlin is associated with poor outcome in oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma patients and is inversely associated with HPV-status. Oncotarget. 2016; 7:18665–77.

16. Wang WS, Liu XH, Liu LX, et al. iTRAQ-based quantitative proteomics reveals myoferlin as a novel prognostic predictor in pancreatic adenocarcinoma. J Proteomics. 2013; 91:453–65.

17. Nishimura Y, Watanabe J, Jobo T, Hattori M, Arai T, Kuramoto H. Cytologic scoring of endometrioid adenocarcinoma of the endometrium. Cancer. 2005; 105:8–12.