TY - JOUR
T1 - Microcystic elongated and fragmented (MELF) pattern of invasion
T2 - Molecular features and prognostic significance in the PORTEC-1 and -2 trials
AU - van den Heerik, A S V M
AU - Aiyer, K T S
AU - Stelloo, E
AU - Jürgenliemk-Schulz, I M
AU - Lutgens, L C H W
AU - Jobsen, J J
AU - Mens, J W M
AU - van der Steen-Banasik, E M
AU - Creutzberg, C L
AU - Smit, V T H B M
AU - Horeweg, N
AU - Bosse, T
N1 - Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
PY - 2022/9
Y1 - 2022/9
N2 - OBJECTIVE: Microcystic, elongated fragmented (MELF) pattern of myometrial invasion is a distinct histologic feature occasionally seen in low-grade endometrial carcinomas (EC). The prognostic relevance of MELF invasion was uncertain due to conflicting data, and it had not yet appropriately been studied in the context of the molecular EC classification. We aimed to determine the relation of MELF invasion with clinicopathological and molecular characteristics, and define its prognostic relevance in early-stage low/intermediate risk EC.METHODS: Single whole tumor slides of 979 (85.8%) out of 1141 (high)intermediate-risk EC of women who participated in the PORTEC-1/-2 trials were available for review. Clinicopathological and molecular features were compared between MELF invasion positive and negative cases. Time-to-event analyses were done by Kaplan-Meier method, log-rank tests and Cox' proportional hazards models.RESULTS: MELF invasion was found in 128 (13.1%) cases, and associated with grade 1-2 histology, deep myometrial invasion and substantial lymph-vascular space invasion (LVSI). 85.6% of MELF invasion positive tumors were no-specific-molecular-profile (NSMP) EC. NSMP EC with MELF invasion were CTNNB1 wild type in 92.2% and KRAS mutated in 24.4% of cases. Risk of recurrence was lower for MELF invasion positive as compared to MELF invasion negative cases (4.9% vs. 12.7%, p = 0.026). However, MELF invasion had no independent impact on risk of recurrence (HR 0.65, p = 0.30) after correction for clinicopathological and molecular factors.CONCLUSIONS: MELF invasion has no independent impact on risk of recurrence in early-stage EC, and is frequently observed in low-grade NSMP tumors. Routine assessment of MELF invasion has no clinical implications and is not recommended.
AB - OBJECTIVE: Microcystic, elongated fragmented (MELF) pattern of myometrial invasion is a distinct histologic feature occasionally seen in low-grade endometrial carcinomas (EC). The prognostic relevance of MELF invasion was uncertain due to conflicting data, and it had not yet appropriately been studied in the context of the molecular EC classification. We aimed to determine the relation of MELF invasion with clinicopathological and molecular characteristics, and define its prognostic relevance in early-stage low/intermediate risk EC.METHODS: Single whole tumor slides of 979 (85.8%) out of 1141 (high)intermediate-risk EC of women who participated in the PORTEC-1/-2 trials were available for review. Clinicopathological and molecular features were compared between MELF invasion positive and negative cases. Time-to-event analyses were done by Kaplan-Meier method, log-rank tests and Cox' proportional hazards models.RESULTS: MELF invasion was found in 128 (13.1%) cases, and associated with grade 1-2 histology, deep myometrial invasion and substantial lymph-vascular space invasion (LVSI). 85.6% of MELF invasion positive tumors were no-specific-molecular-profile (NSMP) EC. NSMP EC with MELF invasion were CTNNB1 wild type in 92.2% and KRAS mutated in 24.4% of cases. Risk of recurrence was lower for MELF invasion positive as compared to MELF invasion negative cases (4.9% vs. 12.7%, p = 0.026). However, MELF invasion had no independent impact on risk of recurrence (HR 0.65, p = 0.30) after correction for clinicopathological and molecular factors.CONCLUSIONS: MELF invasion has no independent impact on risk of recurrence in early-stage EC, and is frequently observed in low-grade NSMP tumors. Routine assessment of MELF invasion has no clinical implications and is not recommended.
U2 - 10.1016/j.ygyno.2022.06.027
DO - 10.1016/j.ygyno.2022.06.027
M3 - Article
C2 - 35840357
SN - 0090-8258
VL - 166
SP - 530
EP - 537
JO - Gynecologic Oncology
JF - Gynecologic Oncology
IS - 3
ER -