BACKGROUND.: Growth factor receptors and cell signaling factors play a crucial role in human carcinomas and have been studied in ovarian tumors with varying results. Cell signaling involves multiple pathways and a myriad of factors that can be mutated or amplified. Cell signaling is driven through the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) and extracellular regulated kinase (ERK) pathways and by some downstream molecules, such as 4E binding protein 1 (4EBP1), eukaryotic initiation factor 4E, and p70 ribosomal protein S6 kinase (p70S6K). The objectives of this study were to analyze the real role that these pathways play in ovarian cancer, to correlate them with clinicopathologic characteristics, and to identify the factors that transmit individual proliferation signals and are associated with pathologic grade and prognosis, regardless specific oncogenic alterations upstream.METHODS.: One hundred twenty‐nine ovarian epithelial tumors were studied, including 20 serous cystadenomas, 7 mucinous cystadenomas, 11 serous borderline tumors, 16 mucinous borderline tumors, 29 serous carcinomas, 16 endometrioid carcinomas, 15 clear cell carcinomas, and 15 mucinous carcinomas. Tissue microarrays were constructed, and immunohistochemistry for the receptors epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and c‐erb‐B2 was performed and with phosphorylated antibodies for protein kinase B (AKT), 4EBP1, p70S6K, S6, and ERK.RESULTS.: Among 129 ovarian neoplasms, 17.8% were positive for c‐erb‐B2, 9.3% were positive for EGFR, 47.3% were positive for phosphorylated AKT (p‐AKT), 58.9% were positive for p‐ERK, 41.1% were positive for p‐4EBP1, 26.4% were positive for p70S6K, and 15.5% were positive for p‐S6. Although EGFR, p‐AKT, and p‐ERK expression did not differ between benign, borderline, or malignant tumors, c‐erb‐B2, p‐4EBP1, p‐p70S6K, and p‐S6 were expressed significantly more often in malignant tumors. Only p‐4EBP1 expression demonstrated prognostic significance (P = .005), and only surgical stage and p‐4EBP1 expression had statistical significance in the multivariate analysis.CONCLUSIONS.: In patients with ovarian carcinoma, significant expression of p‐4EBP1 was associated with high‐grade tumors and a poor prognosis, regardless other oncogenic alterations upstream. This finding supports the study of this factor as a hallmark or pivotal factor in cell signaling in ovarian carcinoma that may crucial in the transmission of the proliferation cell signal and may reflect the real oncogenic role of this pathway in ovarian tumors. Cancer 2006. © 2006 American Cancer Society.

Endometrial cancer (EC) is the sixth most common cancer in women worldwide and its mortality is directly associated with the presence of poor prognostic factors driving tumor recurrence. Stratification systems are based on few molecular, and mostly clinical and pathological parameters, but these systems remain inaccurate. Therefore, identifying prognostic EC biomarkers is crucial for improving risk assessment pre- and postoperatively and to guide treatment decisions. This systematic review gathers all protein biomarkers associated with clinical prognostic factors of EC, recurrence and survival. Relevant studies were identified by searching the PubMed database from 1991 to February 2020. A total number of 398 studies matched our criteria, which compiled 255 proteins associated with the prognosis of EC. MUC16, ESR1, PGR, TP53, WFDC2, MKI67, ERBB2, L1CAM, CDH1, PTEN and MMR proteins are the most validated biomarkers. On the basis of our meta-analysis ESR1, TP53 and WFDC2 showed potential usefulness for predicting overall survival in EC. Limitations of the published studies in terms of appropriate study design, lack of high-throughput measurements, and statistical deficiencies are highlighted, and new approaches and perspectives for the identification and validation of clinically valuable EC prognostic biomarkers are discussed.

Endometrial cancer (EC) is the most frequent of the invasive tumors of the female genital tract. Although usually detected in its initial stages, a 20% of the patients present with advanced disease. To date, no characterized molecular marker has been validated for the diagnosis of EC. In addition, new methods for prognosis and classification of EC are needed to combat this deadly disease. We thus aimed to identify new molecular markers of EC and to evaluate their validity on endometrial aspirates. Gene expression screening on 52 carcinoma samples and series of real‐time quantitative PCR validation on 19 paired carcinomas and normal tissue samples and on 50 carcinoma and noncarcinoma uterine aspirates were performed to identify and validate potential biomarkers of EC. Candidate markers were further confirmed at the protein level by immunohistochemistry and Western blot. We identified ACAA1, AP1M2, CGN, DDR1, EPS8L2, FASTKD1, GMIP, IKBKE, P2RX4, P4HB, PHKG2, PPFIBP2, PPP1R16A, RASSF7, RNF183, SIRT6, TJP3, EFEMP2, SOCS2 and DCN as differentially expressed in ECs. Furthermore, the differential expression of these biomarkers in primary endometrial tumors is correlated to their expression level in corresponding uterine fluid samples. Finally, these biomarkers significantly identified EC with area under the receiver‐operating‐characteristic values ranging from 0.74 to 0.95 in uterine aspirates. Interestingly, analogous values were found among initial stages. We present the discovery of molecular biomarkers of EC and describe their utility in uterine aspirates. These findings represent the basis for the development of a highly sensitive and specific minimally invasive method for screening ECs.

About 20% of patients diagnosed with endometrial cancer (EC) are considered high-risk with unfavorable prognosis. In the framework of the European Network for Individualized Treatment in EC (ENITEC), we investigated the presence and phenotypic features of Circulating Tumor Cells (CTC) in high-risk EC patients. CTC isolation was carried out in peripheral blood samples from 34 patients, ranging from Grade 3 Stage IB to Stage IV carcinomas and recurrences, and 27 healthy controls using two methodologies. Samples were subjected to EpCAM-based immunoisolation using the CELLection™ Epithelial Enrich kit (Invitrogen, Dynal) followed by RTqPCR analysis. The phenotypic determinants of endometrial CTC in terms of pathogenesis, hormone receptor pathways, stem cell markers and epithelial to mesenchymal transition (EMT) drivers were asked. Kruskal-Wallis analysis followed by Dunn’s post-test was used for comparisons between groups. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. EpCAM-based immunoisolation positively detected CTC in high-risk endometrial cancer patients. CTC characterization indicated a remarkable plasticity phenotype defined by the expression of the EMT markers ETV5, NOTCH1, SNAI1, TGFB1, ZEB1 and ZEB2. In addition, the expression of ALDH and CD44 pointed to an association with stemness, while the expression of CTNNB1, STS, GDF15, RELA, RUNX1, BRAF and PIK3CA suggested potential therapeutic targets. We further recapitulated the EMT phenotype found in endometrial CTC through the up-regulation of ETV5 in an EC cell line, and validated in an animal model of systemic dissemination the propensity of these CTC in the accomplishment of metastasis. Our results associate the presence of CTC with high-risk EC. Gene-expression profiling characterized a CTC-plasticity phenotype with stemness and EMT features. We finally recapitulated this CTC-phenotype by over-expressing ETV5 in the EC cell line Hec1A and demonstrated an advantage in the promotion of metastasis in an in vivo mouse model of CTC dissemination and homing.

Identification of aggressive endometrioid endometrial carcinomas (EECs) and non-endometrioid carcinomas (NEECs) is essential to improve outcome. L1 cell adhesion molecule (L1CAM) expression is a strong prognostic marker in stage I EECs, but less is known about L1CAM expression in advanced-stage EECs and NEECs. This study analyses L1CAM expression in a clinically representative cohort of endometrial carcinomas. The expression of L1CAM was immunohistochemically determined in 1199 endometrial carcinomas, treated at one of the European Network for Individualized Treatment of Endometrial Cancer (ENITEC) centres. Staining was considered positive when >10% of the tumour cells expressed L1CAM. The association between L1CAM expression and several clincopathological characteristics and disease outcome was calculated. In all, L1CAM was expressed in 10% of the 935 stage I EECs, 18% of the 160 advanced stage EECs, and 75% of the 104 NEECs. The expression of L1CAM was associated with advanced stage, nodal involvement, high tumour grade, non-endometrioid histology, lymphovascular space invasion, and distant recurrences in all cases, and with reduced survival in the EECs, but not in the NEECs. The expression of L1CAM is a strong predictor of poor outcome in EECs, but not NEECs. It is strongly associated with non-endometrioid histology and distant spread, and could improve the postoperative selection of high-risk endometrial carcinomas. The value of L1CAM expression in the preoperative selection of high-risk endometrial carcinomas should be studied.