Search

Highlights • Patients suffering from both breast and endometrial cancer seem to have unique characteristics. • The sequence of occurrence of malignancies appears to have significance. • In patients that endometrial cancer was diagnosed as a second tumor, it tended to present in a more aggressive form. • In this group, a longer time interval between diagnoses might offer diagnostic and prophylactic opportunities. • No correlation was found to tamoxifen usage among patients., Objective To examine whether patients with both breast cancer (BC) and endometrial cancer (EC) have different features of disease, and whether the sequence of appearance of these tumors is correlated with a more aggressive course. Methods A retrospective, multi-center observational cohort study of patients treated in two tertiary medical centers between 2014 and 2020. Files of patients who had a co-diagnosis of BC and EC were reviewed and clinical, epidemiological, pathological and genetic characteristics were collected. Results 67 patients with a co-diagnosis of both malignances were divided into two groups according to primary tumor diagnosis: BC first group (43/67, 64%) and EC first group (24/67, 36%). The time interval between diagnosis of malignancies was significantly longer in the BC first group (mean 144.5 months vs. 67 months, p

Objective: Evaluation of the impact of lower uterine segment involvement (LUSI) in type II endometrial cancer, and mutational profile of uterine papillary serous carcinomas (UPSC). Methods: Retrospective cohort study comparing patients with type II endometrial cancer with LUSI to patients without LUSI. Genes commonly implicated in carcinogenesis were analyzed in a subgroup of 42 patients with UPSC using next generation sequencing. Results: 83 patients with type II endometrial cancer were included in the study, of these, LUSI was diagnosed in 31.3%. During a median follow-up of 45.5 months, patients with LUSI developed more local and distant recurrences (local: 19.2% vs. 3.5%, P = .03; distant: 50% vs. 17.5%, P = .004) and progression events (73.1% vs. 26.3%, P

Highlights • Preoperative diagnosis of endometrioid carcinoma is common in finally diagnosed serous endometrial cancer. • Endometrioid preoperative sample is associated with better outcome in women finally diagnosed with serous uterine cancer. • Endometrioid preoperative sample is reflected in the mutational profile of final pathology., The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of discordant endometrial sampling on the prognosis of patients finally diagnosed with uterine papillary serous carcinoma (UPSC) and to analyze UPSC mutational profile. Retrospective cohort study comparing outcomes of patients post-operatively diagnosed with UPSC and preoperatively diagnosed with endometrioid endometrial cancer (EEC) or UPSC. Genes commonly implicated in carcinogenesis were analyzed in a subgroup of 40 patients post-operatively diagnosed with UPSC, using next generation sequencing. 61 patients with UPSC on post-surgical, final pathology were included in the study. Prior to surgery, 15 were diagnosed with EEC (discordant) and 46 were correctly diagnosed with UPSC (concordant). After a median follow-up of 41.6 months [5.4–106.7], a preoperative diagnosis of EEC was associated with better 3-year progression-free survival (100% vs. 60.9%, P = 0.003) and longer disease free interval (63.5 versus 15 months, P = 0.026) compared to patients with an initial diagnosis of UPSC. Patients with a concordant diagnosis of UPSC were 5 times more likely to progress or die compared to those with a discordant EEC diagnosis (P = 0.02, P = 0.03, respectively), and their tumors were associated with higher rates of TP53 (88.9% vs. 61.5%, P = 0.04), and a lower rate of PTEN (14.8% vs. 38.5%, P = 0.09) and ARID1A (3.7% vs. 23.1%, P = 0.05) mutations. A pre-surgical diagnosis of EEC is associated with improved prognosis in patients with UPSC. Some histologically defined UPSC tumors contain endometrioid-like molecular characteristics that may confer a survival advantage, suggesting a possible need for molecular approaches to better stratify patients into risk groups.