Open Access

Coexistence of adenomyosis uteri and endometrial cancer is associated with an improved prognosis compared with endometrial cancer only

  • Authors:
    • Linda Hertlein
    • Johanna Rath
    • Christine Zeder‑Göss
    • Sophie Fürst
    • Daniela Bayer
    • Fabian Trillsch
    • Sven Mahner
    • Alexander Burges
    • Udo Jeschke
  • View Affiliations

  • Published online on: July 18, 2017     https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2017.6592
  • Pages: 3302-3308
  • Copyright: © Hertlein et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License.

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )
Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )


Abstract

The present study aimed to identify differences in protein expression in cases of endometrioid endometrial cancer (EEC) with and without coexisting adenomyosis uteri (AM), and to evaluate the histopathological and prognostic distinctions. The total cohort included 22 patients in Group A (patients with concomitant AM and EEC) and 35 patients in Group B (patients affected only by EEC). Evaluation of the following factors was performed: Tumour grade, International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage, survival, and expression of estrogen receptor β (ERβ), glycodelin and inhibin βB. Group A (AM and EEC) was associated with a lower tumour grade (G1, 90.9 vs. 45.7%; P=0.001) and a lower FIGO stage (FIGO stage I, 100 vs. 80%; P=0.002) compared with Group B (EEC only). In the survival analysis, Group A was associated with a significantly higher 5‑year survival rate (95 vs. 82%; P=0.024) than Group B. In addition, the expression of ERβ in Group A was significantly higher (P<0.001), whereas the expression of glycodelin is significantly lower (P=0.028), compared with Group B. The results of the present study indicate that the presence of AM in cases of EEC may be a positive prognostic factor.

Introduction

Endometrial cancer (EC) is the most commonly occurring malignant neoplasm of the female reproductive tract in developed countries (1). Typically, EC is confined to the uterus and is characterized by a good prognosis, with an overall 5-year survival rate of 75–80% (2). Endometrial endometrioid cancer (EEC), a histological subtype of EC, represents 80% of all cases of EC (2).

Adenomyosis uteri (AM) is defined by the presence of endometrial mucosa within the myometrium. In hysterectomy specimens obtained during the treatment of EEC, AM may be found in 16–42% (36). A more favorable prognosis and a lower histopathological grade in cases EEC with coexisting AM has been reported in a number of studies (3,4,7,8). However the significance of the presence of AM in cases of EEC remains unclear. Despite early predictions, the collective evidence suggests that estrogen receptor β (ERβ) serves an important role in normal endometrial tissue (911) and also in most, if not all, benign and malignant endometrial diseases (1214). In ectopic endometrial lesions and AM, it has been reported that high levels of ERβ expression, 100-times higher than that in eutopic endometrium, may be detected (15). In EEC, it has been reported that ERβ mRNA and protein levels are decreased compared with adjacent normal endometrium or normal proliferative endometrium from healthy premenopausal women (16,17). However, a potential oncogenic role of ERβ has also been proposed in other reports, which showed an upregulation of the ERβ5 transcript in high-grade EEC (18,19). In summary, ERβ appears to play a dual role: As a tumour suppressor in healthy endometrium, and as a potential tumour promoter in high-grade EC cells that have lost other receptor subtypes (12).

The present study aimed to identify the differences in the expression of several proteins, including ERβ, in cases of EEC with and without AM, and to evaluate the potential histopathological and prognostic distinctions between these two groups.

Patients and methods

Patients and specimen characteristics

The present retrospective observational cohort study included 57 patients with EEC, whose records were obtained from the archives of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Ludwig-Maximilian University of Munich (Munich, Germany). Group A consisted of 22 patients with coexistent EEC and AM. Group B comprised 35 patients with EEC alone. Patients had undergone surgical resection of EEC between January 1990 and December 2002. The patients' former tumour stages were corrected to the updated FIGO classification from 2010 (20).

Study design

Patients were recruited between 1990 and 2002 as described; follow-up continued until December 2015. Clinical and follow-up data were retrieved retrospectively from patient charts and from the Munich Cancer Registry (Munich, Germany). The overall mean follow-up time of the cohort was 8 years (range, 4–15 years). The outcomes assessed were overall survival time and progression free survival. Overall survival is defined as the number of months between the patient's initial diagnosis with endometrial carcinoma until the last follow up or mortality. Progression free survival is defined by the number of months between the initial diagnosis and when the patient developed either a relapse or further progression of the disease, including lymph node involvement or metastasis.

Ethical approval

All patient data were fully anonymized, and the study was performed according to the standards set in the Declaration of Helsinki, 1975. All tumour tissue used in the study was leftover material that had initially been collected for histopathological diagnostic assessments. All diagnostic procedures had already been fully completed when samples were retrieved for the study. The present study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Ludwig-Maximilian University of Munich (approval no. 449-14). Investigators were blinded to the patients' clinical information during experimental analysis.

Assay methods

Formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue sections were stored at room temperature. Tumour tissues and tissues with AM were selected from hematoxylin-stained whole uterus slides. Sections with a thickness of 2 µm of tumour or AM positive tissue were prepared and used for the staining. Slides were dewaxed in xylol and rehydrated in a descending series of alcohol concentrations. The immunohistochemical staining of the paraffin-embedded tissues for glycodelin (in Group B) and inhibin βB was detected with the avidin-biotin complex method described by Kricka and Wild (21) using the mouse VECTASTAIN Elite ABC kit (Vector Laboratories, Inc., Burlingame, CA, USA). For the detection of glycodelin (in Group A) and ERβ1, the ZytoChem Plus HRP Polymer kit (Zytomed Systems GmbH, Berlin, Germany) was used, according to the manufacturer's protocol. The primary antibodies are described in Table I, and were incubated with the tissue sections for 16 h at 4°C, prior to detection with the aforementioned methods.

Table I.

Primary antibodies used in the study.

Table I.

Primary antibodies used in the study.

Primary antibodyHostCloneCat. no.SupplierDilution
Estrogen receptor β 1Mouse (IgG2a)PPG5/10M7292Dako; Agilent Technologies GmbH, Waldbronn, Germany1:200 in Dako antibody diluent
GlycodelinMouse (IgG1κ)6F2116–0646Zytomed Systems GmbH, Berlin, Germany1:4,000 in PBS
Inhibin βBMouse (IgG2a)C5MCA1661Serotec; Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc., Hercules, CA, USA1:70 in Dako antibody diluent

Immunoreactivity was quantified with Remmele's semi-quantitative immunoreactivity score (IRS) (22) by two independent observers by consensus. This scoring method quantifies immunoreactivity by multiplication of the optical staining intensity score (0, none; 1, weak; 2, moderate; or 3, strong) with a score representing the percentage of positively stained cells (0, no staining; 1, ≤10% of cells; 2, 11–50% of cells; 3, 51–80% of cells; or 4, ≥81% of cells), resulting in the overall IRS, which can be subdivided as follows: 0–2, negative; 3–4, weak-positive; 6–8, moderate-positive; and 9–12, strong-positive.

Statistical analysis

The IBM statistical package SPSS (version 23; IBM, Armonk, NY, USA) was used to test data for statistical significance. A Mann-Whitney U-Test was performed for analyses of differences in staining results and Spearman's rank correlation analysis was performed for correlation analyses. Survival times were compared by using Kaplan-Meier estimates, and the differences in the patients' overall survival rates were tested for significance by using the log-rank test. Data were considered to be statistically significantly different where P<0.05.

Results

General patient features

The patients in Group A (AM and EEC) and Group B (EEC only) were similar in age at time of EEC diagnosis (mean age, 63.9 vs. 63.2 years, respectively). With regard to the prevalence of diabetes, hypertension or obesity in the patients' medical histories, there were no significance differences between the groups. The clinicopathological characteristics and follow-up data of all included patients are reported in detail in Table II.

Table II.

General features, histological features and follow-up data of the patients in the two study groups.

Table II.

General features, histological features and follow-up data of the patients in the two study groups.

CharacteristicAll patients (n=57)Group Aa (n=22)Group Bb (n=35)P-value
Age at diagnosis, years 0.987
  Mean63.563.963.2
  Range36–8352–8236–83
Obesity, n (%) 0.583
  Yes18 (31.6)6 (27.3)12 (34.3)
  No39 (68.4)16 (72.7)23 (65.7)
Diabetes, n (%) 0.946
  Yes8 (14.0)3 (13.6)5 (14.3)
  No49 (86.0)19 (86.4)30 (85.7)
Hypertension, n (%) 0.703
  Yes19 (33.3)8 (36.4)11 (31.4)
  No38 (66.7)14 (63.6)24 (68.6)
FIGO stage, n (%) 0.002
  I50 (87.7)22 (100)28 (80.0)
  IA37 (64.9)19 (86.4)18 (51.4)
  IB13 (22.8)3 (13.6)10 (28.6)
  II3 (5.3)0 (0.0)3 (8.6)
  III4 (7.0)0 (0.0)4 (11.4)
  IV0 (0.0)0 (0.0)0 (0.0)
Lymph node metastasis, n (%)2 (3.5)1 (4.5)1 (2.9)
Distant metastasis, n (%)0 (0.0)0 (0.0)0 (0.0)
Grade, n (%) 0.001
  136 (63.2)20 (90.9)16 (45.7)
  219 (33.3)1 (4.5)18 (51.4)
  31 (1.8)0 (0.0)1 (2.9)
Lymphatic invasion, n (%) 0.849
  Yes3 (5.3)1 (4.5)2 (5.7)
  No54 (94.7)21 (95.5)33 (94.3)
Vascular invasion, n (%) 0.428
  Yes1 (1.8)0 (0.0)1 (2.9)
  No56 (98.2)22 (100)34 (97.1)
Follow-up duration, years
  Mean8.97.8
  Range4–145–14
Mortality during follow-up, n (%)10 (17.5)2 (9.1)8 (22.9)
No follow-up, n (%)2 (5.7)0 (0.0)2 (5.7)

a AM and EEC

b EEC only. AM, adenomyosis uteri; EEC, endometrioid endometrial cancer; FIGO, International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics.

AM is associated with lower FIGO stage in EEC

In the current cohort, the surgical FIGO stage differed significantly between the two groups. In Group A (AM and EEC), 22/22 patients (100%) were assigned to FIGO stage I, compared with 28/35 patients (80%) in Group B (EEC only; P=0.002). Notably, 86.4% (19/22 patients) of Group A and 51.4% (18/35 patients) of Group B were categorized as stage IA. In Group B, 3/35 patients (8.6%) were assigned to FIGO stage II, and 4/35 patients (11.4%) were assigned to FIGO stage III.

AM is associated with a lower grade in EEC

With regard to the prevalence of lymphatic or vascular invasion, no significant differences between the two groups could be identified. Regarding tumour grade, a significant difference was identified between Group A and Group B (G1, 90.9 vs. 45.7%; G2, 4.5 vs. 51.4%; G3, 0 vs. 2.9%, respectively; P=0.001; Fig. 1). Thus, higher tumour grades, indicating poor differentiation of the tumour cells, were more common in the patients without AM.

AM is associated with increased survival time in patients with EEC

The survival curves of the patients in Groups A and B are shown in Fig. 2. The 5-year overall survival rate of Group A was 95%, which was significantly higher than that of Group B (82%; P=0.024). The survival rate after 10 years remained the same for Group A, whereas the 10-year survival rate of Group B decreased to 72%. The mean overall survival time was higher in Group A than in Group B (159 months (13.25 years) vs. 142 months (11.8 years), respectively). In summary, patients with AM and EEC (Group A) had a significantly increased mean overall survival times than patients with EEC alone (Group B; P=0.024).

AM is associated with increased expression of ERβ and decreased expression of glycodelin in EEC. Table III summarizes the results of the different protein expression analyses. When comparing the percentage of cases with an IRS >2 for ERβ, a significant difference was identified between the two groups (P<0.001): In Group B, ERβ expression was detected in 6/35 cases (17.1%), and only 1 case (2.9%) was assigned an IRS >2 (Fig. 3); whereas, in Group A, 14/20 cases assessed for ERβ expression (70%) exhibited expression of ERβ, with 6 cases (30%) assigned an IRS >2 (Fig. 4). Therefore, the presence of AM in cases of EEC is associated with higher expression of ERβ than that in cases of EEC alone. In Group A, the prevalence of glycodelin expression with an IRS >2 was significantly lower (P=0.028; Fig. 5) than that in Group B (Fig. 6; Table III). With regard to the prevalence of inhibin βB expression (data not shown), no significant differences between the two groups were identified (P=0.077).

Table III.

Expression of the different proteins in the different groups.

Table III.

Expression of the different proteins in the different groups.

ProteinAll patientsGroup AaGroup BbP-value
Estrogen receptor β (IRS >2), n (%) <0.001
  Yes7 (12.7)6 (30.0)1 (2.9)
  No48 (87.3)14 (70.0)34 (97.1)
Glycodelin (IRS >2), n (%) 0.028
  Yes38 (86.4)15 (78.9)23 (92.0)
  No6 (13.6)4 (21.1)2 (8.0)
Inhibin βB (IRS >2), n (%) 0.077
  Yes34 (94.4)14 (93.3)20 (95.2)
  No2 (5.5)1 (6.7)1 (4.8)

a AM and EEC

b EEC only. AM, adenomyosis uteri; EEC, endometrioid endometrial cancer; IRS, immunoreactivity score.

Discussion

The majority of cases of EC (80%) are of the endometrioid subtype (EEC) (2). This Type I EC is estrogen-dependent, is typically well-differentiated, and is characterized by a good prognosis in general. By contrast, Type II EC is estrogen-independent, predominantly comprises the serous and clear cell histological subtypes, and has a worse prognosis (2326).

AM is a benign disease characterized by the presence of endometrial mucosa within the myometrium. It is a hormone-dependent disease and typically regresses subsequent to menopause. In postmenopausal women with EEC, there is a higher prevalence of AM and myoma uteri than in patients of the same age with uterine prolapse (27). Certain studies have reported a more favorable prognosis and a lower histopathological grade in cases of EEC with coexisting AM (3,4,7,8).

Regarding the tumour stage, all 22 patients in Group A (AM and EEC; 100%) vs. only 28/35 patients (80%) in Group B (EEC only) were assigned to FIGO stage I (P=0.02). Additionally, a higher percentage of patients in Group A, compared with Group B, were assigned to FIGO stage IA (86.4 vs. 51.4%). These findings are in accord with the findings of studies by Musa et al (28) and Gizzo et al (7), which reported that concurrent AM and EEC was associated with a lower tumour grade, with <50% myometrial invasion, and with the absence of lymphovascular space involvement and lymph node metastasis. Furthermore, the lower histopathological grade (G1, 90.9 vs. 45.7%, respectively) in Group A (with AM) vs. Group B (without AM) observed in the present study was consistent with the report by Koshiyama et al (8). Thus, the present study confirmed that patients with coexisting AM and EEC tend to have a lower tumour stage and a higher differentiation grade. One possible explanation for this finding could be that there is an adhesion mechanism between AM foci and cancer cells; these adhesions may prevent cancer cells from invading deeper in the myometrium (2931). Regarding the survival data, patients with EEC and coexistent AM showed significantly more favorable outcomes than those with EEC alone.

Although previous studies have investigated ERβ, glycodelin and inhibin βB in cases of AM and EEC (3135), to the best of our knowledge, the present study is the first in which these factors were measured and compared with one other in a single study. Regarding the expression of ERβ, Group A (AM and EEC) showed a significantly increased prevalence compared with Group B (EEC). This result may be explained by the increased expression of ERβ that has been shown to be present in AM (15). The decreased expression of ERβ in patients with EEC alone was also consistent with previous studies (16,17).

Glycodelin, also known as a progestogen-associated endometrial protein, is a glycoprotein that has immunosuppressive capacity, and is predominantly produced in reproductive tissues (36). In a former study by our group, intermediate and high expression levels of glycodelin were associated with a prolonged survival time in patients with EC (33). Notably, in the current study, the prevalence of glycodelin expression in Group A (AM and EEC) was significantly decreased compared with that in Group B (EEC; P=0.028). This can be explained because women with endometriosis exhibited a >50-fold downregulation of glycodelin in endometrial tissue compared to normal controls during the window of implantation (37). This decreased glycodelin expression also seemed to persist during the carcinogenesis of EC in the present study. In this context, women with AM and EEC appear to have a survival advantage, which could be explained by the angiogenic role of glycodelin during tumorigenesis; Song et al (38) found that a synthetic peptide derived from the sequence of glycodelin may serve an important role in neovascularization during embryogenesis and tumour development. It is notable that the inverse association between the presence of AM and the expression of glycodelin in EEC has only been identified in specimens that were stained with an antibody raised against a peptide sequence of glycodelin, and not in those that were stained with anti-glycodelin A antibody, which is specific to a particular glycosylated form of glycodelin (3941). The measurement of glycodelin or ERβ was previously described in endometrial tissue (42,43). However, no correlation between these two parameters has been described.

Inhibins are heterodimers consisting of an α subunit and a β subunit, and they belong to the transforming growth factor β cytokine family (44). The α subunit can dimerize with either βA or βB to form inhibin A (α-βA) or B (α-βB) (45,46). In a previous study by our group, hyperplastic endometrial tissue was found to exhibit more intense staining for inhibins, particularly inhibin βA and βB, compared with EC. The presence of inhibin βA and βB suggests that they have an important function in endometrial pathogenesis and in endometrial carcinogenesis (34). For inhibin βB, more intense labelling was noted in atypical hyperplasia compared with EC (34). Thus, the present study investigated the differences in the expression of inhibin βB between the two groups. However, no significant differences were observed. In adenosquamous EC, the absence of the expression of inhibin βB and ERβ indicates the malignancy of these tumors (32).

One limitation of the present study was the variation in immunostaining in each specimen due to varying expression levels in different regions of the tumour. Other molecular methods for determining expression levels, such as western blotting, would be desirable to verify the results. However, as the present study utilized formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue specimens, this was not possible.

In conclusion, in cases of EEC, the presence of AM is associated with a lower FIGO stage, lower tumour grade and an increased survival rate. The expression of ERβ was more prevalent in cases of AM and EEC than in cases of EEC alone, whereas glycodelin expression was less prevalent when AM was present. Future research should focus on the influence of estrogen on the AM and EEC cases, and on prevention strategies in the development of EEC.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Ms. Christina Kuhn, Ms. Sandra Schulze and Ms. Simone Hofmann from the Ludwig-Maximilian University of Munich for their technical support. In addition, the authors thank Mr. Laurent Soussana from the Ludwig-Maximilian University of Munich for language revision.

Glossary

Abbreviations

Abbreviations:

AM

adenomyosis uteri

EC

endometrial cancer

EEC

endometrioid endometrial cancer

ERβ

estrogen receptor β

IRS

immunoreactivity score

References

1 

Siegel RL, Miller KD and Jemal A: Cancer statistics, 2016. CA Cancer J Clin. 66:7–30. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

2 

Prat J: Prognostic parameters of endometrial carcinoma. Hum Pathol. 35:649–662. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

3 

Bergeron C, Amant F and Ferenczy A: Pathology and physiopathology of adenomyosis. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 20:511–521. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

4 

Kucera E, Hejda V, Dankovcik R, Valha P, Dudas M and Feyereisl J: Malignant changes in adenomyosis in patients with endometrioid adenocarcinoma. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 32:182–184. 2011.PubMed/NCBI

5 

Ismiil N, Rasty G, Ghorab Z, Nofech-Mozes S, Bernardini M, Ackerman I, Thomas G, Covens A and Khalifa MA: Adenomyosis involved by endometrial adenocarcinoma is a significant risk factor for deep myometrial invasion. Ann Diagn Pathol. 11:252–257. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

6 

Seidman JD and Kjerulff KH: Pathologic findings from the Maryland Women's Health Study: Practice patterns in the diagnosis of adenomyosis. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 15:217–221. 1996. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

7 

Gizzo S, Patrelli TS, Dall'Asta A, Gangi DIS, Giordano G, Migliavacca C, Monica M, Merisio C, Nardelli GB, Quaranta M, et al: Coexistence of adenomyosis and endometrioid endometrial cancer: Role in surgical guidance and prognosis estimation. Oncol Lett. 11:1213–1219. 2016.PubMed/NCBI

8 

Koshiyama M, Okamoto T and Ueta M: The relationship between endometrial carcinoma and coexistent adenomyosis uteri, endometriosis externa and myoma uteri. Cancer Detect Prev. 28:94–98. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

9 

Mylonas I, Jeschke U, Shabani N, Kuhn C, Kriegel S, Kupka MS and Friese K: Normal and malignant human endometrium express immunohistochemically estrogen receptor alpha (ER-alpha), estrogen receptor beta (ER-beta) and progesterone receptor (PR). Anticancer Res. 25:1679–1686. 2005.PubMed/NCBI

10 

Mylonas I, Jeschke U, Shabani N, Kuhn C, Balle A, Kriegel S, Kupka MS and Friese K: Immunohistochemical analysis of estrogen receptor alpha, estrogen receptor beta and progesterone receptor in normal human endometrium. Acta Histochem. 106:245–252. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

11 

Brandenberger AW, Lebovic DI, Tee MK, Ryan IP, Tseng JF, Jaffe RB and Taylor RN: Oestrogen receptor (ER)-alpha and ER-beta isoforms in normal endometrial and endometriosis-derived stromal cells. Mol Hum Reprod. 5:651–655. 1999. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

12 

Hapangama DK, Kamal AM and Bulmer JN: Estrogen receptor β: The guardian of the endometrium. Hum Reprod Update. 21:174–193. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

13 

Mylonas I, Speer R, Makovitzky J, Richter DU, Briese V, Jeschke U and Friese K: Immunohistochemical analysis of steroid receptors and glycodelin A (PP14) in isolated glandular epithelial cells of normal human endometrium. Histochem Cell Biol. 114:405–411. 2000.PubMed/NCBI

14 

Shabani N, Kuhn C, Kunze S, Schulze S, Mayr D, Dian D, Gingelmaier A, Schindlbeck C, Willgeroth F, Sommer H, Jeschke U, et al: Prognostic significance of oestrogen receptor alpha (ERalpha) and beta (ERbeta), progesterone receptor A (PR-A) and B (PR-B) in endometrial carcinomas. Eur J Cancer. 43:2434–2444. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

15 

Bulun SE, Monsavais D, Pavone ME, Dyson M, Xue Q, Attar E, Tokunaga H and Su EJ: Role of estrogen receptor-β in endometriosis. Semin Reprod Med. 30:39–45. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

16 

Paul M, Cholewa K, Mazurek U, Witek A and Wilczok T: Estrogen receptor beta delta 6 (ER beta delta 6) isoform in human endometrial hyperplasia and adenocarcinoma. Cancer Invest. 22:211–218. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

17 

Smuc T and Rizner TL: Aberrant pre-receptor regulation of estrogen and progesterone action in endometrial cancer. Mol Cell Endocrinol. 301:74–82. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

18 

Skrzypczak M, Bieche I, Szymczak S, Tozlu S, Lewandowski S, Girault I, Radwanska K, Szczylik C, Jakowicki JA, Lidereau R and Kaczmarek L: Evaluation of mRNA expression of estrogen receptor beta and its isoforms in human normal and neoplastic endometrium. Int J Cancer. 110:783–787. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

19 

Haring J, Schüler S, Lattrich C, Ortmann O and Treeck O: Role of estrogen receptor β in gynecological cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 127:673–676. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

20 

Horn LC, Schierle K, Schmidt D, Ulrich U, Liebmann A and Wittekind C: Current TNM/FIGO classification for cervical and endometrial cancer as well as malignant mixed mullerian tumors. Facts and background. Pathologe. 32:239–243. 2011.(In German). View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

21 

Kricka LJ and Wild D: Signal generation and detection systems (excluding homogeneous assays)The Immunoassay Handbook. 3rd. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publisher; pp. 2202005

22 

Remmele W and Stegner HE: Recommendation for uniform definition of an immunoreactive score (IRS) for immunohistochemical estrogen receptor detection (ER-ICA) in breast cancer tissue. Pathologe. 8:138–140. 1987.(In German). PubMed/NCBI

23 

Tabernero JM, Alonso MC, Ojeda B, Fuentes J, Balart J, Badia J, Climent MA and Delgado E: Endometrial cancer stages I and II. Analysis of survival and prognostic factors. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 16:18–25. 1995.PubMed/NCBI

24 

Reisinger SA, Staros EB and Mohiuddin M: Survival and failure analysis in stage II endometrial cancer using the revised 1988 FIGO staging system. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 21:1027–1032. 1991. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

25 

Ayhan A, Taskiran C, Celik C and Yuce K: The long-term survival of women with surgical stage II endometrioid type endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 93:9–13. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

26 

Mahdi H, Hou H, Kowk LL, Moslemi-Kebria M and Michener C: Type II endometrial cancer in Hispanic women: Tumor characteristics, treatment and survival compared to non-Hispanic white women. Gynecol Oncol. 133:512–517. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

27 

Koshiyama M, Morita Y, Fujii H, Kobashi Y and Yoshida M: Gynecologic malignancies accompanied by benign hormone-dependent diseases. Menopause. 8:149–150. 2001. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

28 

Musa F, Frey MK, Im HB, Chekmareva M, Ellenson LH and Holcomb K: Does the presence of adenomyosis and lymphovascular space invasion affect lymph node status in patients with endometrioid adenocarcinoma of the endometrium? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 207(417): e1–e6. 2012.

29 

Matsuo K, Cahoon SS, Gualtieri M, Scannell CA, Jung CE, Takano T, Paulson RJ, Muderspach LI and Roman LD: Significance of adenomyosis on tumor progression and survival outcome of endometrial cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 21:4246–4255. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

30 

Matsuo K, Moeini A, Machida H, Scannell CA, Casabar JK, Kakuda M, Adachi S, Garcia-Sayre J, Ueda Y and Roman LD: Tumor characteristics and survival outcome of endometrial cancer arising in adenomyosis: An exploratory analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 23:959–967. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

31 

Mehasseb MK, Panchal R, Taylor AH, Brown L, Bell SC and Habiba M: Estrogen and progesterone receptor isoform distribution through the menstrual cycle in uteri with and without adenomyosis. Fertil Steril. 95:2228–2235, 2235.e1. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

32 

Gingelmaier A, Gutsche S, Mylonas I, Shabani N, Kuhn C, Kunze S, Jeschke U and Friese K: Expression of HPV, steroid receptors (ERalpha, ERbeta, PR-A and PR-B) and inhibin/activin subunits (alpha, betaA and betaB) in adenosquamous endometrial carcinoma. Anticancer Res. 27:2011–2017. 2007.PubMed/NCBI

33 

Lenhard M, Heublein S, Kunert-Keil C, Vrekoussis T, Lomba I, Ditsch N, Mayr D, Friese K and Jeschke U: Immunosuppressive Glycodelin A is an independent marker for poor prognosis in endometrial cancer. BMC Cancer. 13:6162013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

34 

Mylonas I, Makovitzky J, Hoeing A, Richter DU, Vogl J, Schulze S, Jeschke U, Briese V and Friese K: Inhibin/activin subunits beta-A (−betaA) and beta-B (−betaB) are differentially localised in normal, hyperplastic and malignant human endometrial tissue. Acta Histochem. 108:1–11. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

35 

Panoulis K, Christantoni E, Pliatsika P, Anagnostis P, Goulis DG, Kondi-Pafiti A, Armeni E, Augoulea A, Triantafyllou N, Creatsa M and Lambrinoudaki I: Expression of gonadal steroid receptors in the ovaries of post-menopausal women with malignant or benign endometrial pathology: A pilot study. Gynecol Endocrinol. 31:613–617. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

36 

Mazurkiewicz JE, Bank JF and Joshi SG: Immunocytochemical localization of a progestagen-associated endometrial protein in the human decidua. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 52:1006–1068. 1981. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

37 

Kao LC, Germeyer A, Tulac S, Lobo S, Yang JP, Taylor RN, Osteen K, Lessey BA and Giudice LC: Expression profiling of endometrium from women with endometriosis reveals candidate genes for disease-based implantation failure and infertility. Endocrinology. 144:2870–2881. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

38 

Song M, Ramaswamy S, Ramachandran S, Flowers LC, Horowitz IR, Rock JA and Parthasarathy S: Angiogenic role for glycodelin in tumorigenesis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 98:9265–9270. 2001. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

39 

Jeschke U, Kuhn C, Mylonas I, Schulze S, Friese K, Mayr D, Speer R, Briese V, Richter DU, Haase M and Karsten U: Development and characterization of monoclonal antibodies for the immunohistochemical detection of glycodelin A in decidual, endometrial and gynaecological tumour tissues. Histopathology. 48:394–406. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

40 

Jeschke U, Bischof A, Speer R, Briese V, Richter DU, Bergemann C, Mylonas I, Shabani N, Friese K and Karsten U: Development of monoclonal and polyclonal antibodies and an ELISA for the determination of glycodelin in human serum, amniotic fluid and cystic fluid of benign and malignant ovarian tumors. Anticancer Res. 25:1581–1589. 2005.PubMed/NCBI

41 

Jeschke U, Mylonas I, Kunert-Keil C, Stahn R, Scholz C, Janni W, Kuhn C, Schröder E, Mayr D and Friese K: Immunohistochemistry, glycosylation and immunosuppression of glycodelin in human ovarian cancer. Histochem Cell Biol. 131:283–295. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

42 

Fazleabas AT, Brudney A, Chai D, Langoi D and Bulun SE: Steroid receptor and aromatase expression in baboon endometriotic lesions. Fertil Steril. 80:(Suppl 2). 820–827. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

43 

Fazleabas AT, Kim JJ, Srinivasan S, Donnelly KM, Brudney A and Jaffe RC: Implantation in the baboon: Endometrial responses. Semin Reprod Endocrinol. 17:257–265. 1999. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

44 

Vale W, Rivier C, Hsueh A, Campen C, Meunier H, Bicsak T, Vaughan J, Corrigan A, Bardin W, Sawchenko P, et al: Chemical and biological characterization of the inhibin family of protein hormones. Recent Prog Horm Res. 44:1–34. 1988.PubMed/NCBI

45 

Mylonas I, Jeschke U, Winkler L, Makovitzky J, Richter DU, Briese V and Friese K: Immunohistochemical expression of inhibin-alpha in human endometrium and the in vitro secretion of inhibin, estradiol and cortisol in cultured human endometrial glandular cells. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 268:142–150. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

46 

Mylonas I, Winkler L, Jeschke U, Briese V and Friese K: Investigations on isolation, purification and cultivation of human endometrial cells and on the in vitro inhibin expression in glandular epithelial cells. Zentralbl Gynakol. 125:415–423. 2003.(In German). PubMed/NCBI

Related Articles

Journal Cover

September-2017
Volume 14 Issue 3

Print ISSN: 1792-1074
Online ISSN:1792-1082

Sign up for eToc alerts

Recommend to Library

Copy and paste a formatted citation
x
Spandidos Publications style
Hertlein L, Rath J, Zeder‑Göss C, Fürst S, Bayer D, Trillsch F, Mahner S, Burges A and Jeschke U: Coexistence of adenomyosis uteri and endometrial cancer is associated with an improved prognosis compared with endometrial cancer only. Oncol Lett 14: 3302-3308, 2017
APA
Hertlein, L., Rath, J., Zeder‑Göss, C., Fürst, S., Bayer, D., Trillsch, F. ... Jeschke, U. (2017). Coexistence of adenomyosis uteri and endometrial cancer is associated with an improved prognosis compared with endometrial cancer only. Oncology Letters, 14, 3302-3308. https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2017.6592
MLA
Hertlein, L., Rath, J., Zeder‑Göss, C., Fürst, S., Bayer, D., Trillsch, F., Mahner, S., Burges, A., Jeschke, U."Coexistence of adenomyosis uteri and endometrial cancer is associated with an improved prognosis compared with endometrial cancer only". Oncology Letters 14.3 (2017): 3302-3308.
Chicago
Hertlein, L., Rath, J., Zeder‑Göss, C., Fürst, S., Bayer, D., Trillsch, F., Mahner, S., Burges, A., Jeschke, U."Coexistence of adenomyosis uteri and endometrial cancer is associated with an improved prognosis compared with endometrial cancer only". Oncology Letters 14, no. 3 (2017): 3302-3308. https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2017.6592