Background: Mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) therapy is an attractive treatment option for various cancers. Whether MSCs can be used to treat well-differentiated endometrial cancer (EC) remains unclear. The aim of this study is to explore the potential therapeutic effects of MSCs on EC and the underlying mechanisms.Methods: The effects of adipose-derived MSCs (AD-MSCs), umbilical-cord-derived MSCs (UC-MSCs), and endometrium-derived MSCs (eMSCs) on the malignant behaviors of EC cells were explored via in vitro and in vivo experiments. Three EC models, including patient-derived EC organoid lines, EC cell lines, and EC xenograft model in female BALB/C nude mice, were used for this study. The effects of MSCs on EC cell proliferation, apoptosis, migration, and the growth of xenograft tumors were evaluated. The potential mechanisms by which eMSCs inhibit EC cell proliferation and stemness were explored by regulating DKK1 expression in eMSCs or Wnt signaling in EC cells.Results: Our results showed that eMSCs had the highest inhibitory effect on EC cell viability, and EC xenograft tumor growth in mice compared to AD-MSCs and UC-MSCs. Conditioned medium (CM) obtained from eMSCs significantly suppressed the sphere-forming ability and stemness-related gene expression of EC cells. In comparison to AD-MSCs and UC-MSCs, eMSCs had the highest level of Dickkopf-related protein 1 (DKK1) secretion. Mechanistically, eMSCs inhibited Wnt/β-catenin signaling in EC cells via secretion of DKK1, and eMSCs suppressed EC cell viability and stemness through DKK1-Wnt/β-catenin signaling. Additionally, the combination of eMSCs and medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) significantly inhibited the viability of EC organoids and EC cells compared with eMSCs or MPA alone.Conclusions: The eMSCs, but not AD-MSCs or UC-MSCs, could suppress the malignant behaviors of EC both in vivo and in vitro via inhibiting the Wnt/β-catenin signaling pathway by secreting DKK1. The combination of eMSCs and MPA effectively inhibited EC growth, indicating that eMSCs may potentially be a new therapeutic strategy for young EC patients desiring for fertility preservation.

Progestin resistance is a major obstacle to conservative therapy in patients with endometrial cancer (EC) and endometrial atypical hyperplasia (EAH). However, the related inducing factor is yet unclear. In this study, thyroid hormone and its receptor α (TRα) and β (TRβ) of patients were assayed. THRB-silenced RL95-2 and KLE EC cells were cultured to investigate the response of progestins. Transcriptomics and Western blotting were performed to investigate the changes in signaling pathways. We found that THRB, rather than THRA, knockdown promoted the viability and motilities of RL95-2 cells but not KLE cells. The suppressive effect of progestins on cell growth and motility significantly decreased in THRB-silenced RL95-2 cells. Multiple proliferation-related signaling pathways were enriched, and the activities of mammalian targets of rapamycin (mTOR)/4e-binding protein 1 (4EBP1)/eukaryotic translation initiation factor 4G (eIF4G) rather than phosphorylated protein kinase B (Akt) were remarkably boosted. Progestin treatment enhanced the effects, and the augmentation was partially abated on supplementation with T3. In THRB-knockdown KLE cells, the progestins-activated partial signaling pathway expression (either mTOR or eIF4G), and supplementation with T3 did not induce noticeable alterations. The serum levels of triiodothyronine (T3) were significantly lower in patients with EC compared with healthy women. A strong expression of TRβ was observed in most patients with EC and EAH sensitive to progestin treatment. In contrast, TRα positive expression was detected in less than half of the patients sensitive to progestin therapy. In conclusion, THRB knockdown enhanced the viability and motility of type I EC cells and attenuated the suppressive effects of progestins by activating the mTOR-4EBP1/eIF4G pathway. Lower expression of THRB is likely correlated with progesterone resistance.

Objective: The aim of this study was to establish predictive models based on the molecular profiles of endometrial lesions, which might help identify progestin-insensitive endometrial atypical hyperplasia (EAH) or endometrioid endometrial cancer (EEC) patients before progestin-based fertility-preserving treatment initiation.Methods: Endometrial lesions from progestin-sensitive (PS, n = 7) and progestin-insensitive (PIS, n = 7) patients were prospectively collected before progestin treatment and then analyzed by ATAC-Seq and RNA-Seq. Potential chromatin accessibility and expression profiles were compared between the PS and PIS groups. Candidate genes were identified by bioinformatics analyses and literature review. Then expanded samples (n = 35) were used for validating bioinformatics data and conducting model establishment.Results: ATAC-Seq and RNA-Seq data were separately analyzed and then integrated for the subsequent research. A total of 230 overlapping differentially expressed genes were acquired from ATAC-Seq and RNA-Seq integrated analysis. Further, based on GO analysis, REACTOME pathways, transcription factor prediction, motif enrichment, Cytoscape analysis and literature review, 25 candidate genes potentially associated with progestin insensitivity were identified. Finally, expanded samples were used for data verification, and based on these data, three predictive models comprising 9 genes (FOXO1, IRS2, PDGFC, DIO2, SOX9, BCL11A, APOE, FYN, and KLF4) were established with an overall predictive accuracy above 90%.Conclusion: This study provided potential predictive models that might help identify progestin-insensitive EAH and EEC patients before fertility-preserving treatment.