BioMed Research International

BioMed Research International / 2020 / Article

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2020 |Article ID 4584250 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/4584250

Paweł Sadłecki, Jakub Jóźwicki, Paulina Antosik, Małgorzata Walentowicz-Sadłecka, "Expression of Selected Epithelial-Mesenchymal Transition Transcription Factors in Endometrial Cancer", BioMed Research International, vol. 2020, Article ID 4584250, 13 pages, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/4584250

Expression of Selected Epithelial-Mesenchymal Transition Transcription Factors in Endometrial Cancer

Academic Editor: Plamen Todorov
Received28 Jul 2020
Accepted18 Dec 2020
Published29 Dec 2020

Abstract

Endometrial cancer (EC) is the most common gynecologic malignancy in developed countries. The aim of this study was to analyze the expression of SNAIL, SLUG, TWIST1, TWIST2, ZEB1, and ZEB 2 in primary tumor and the correlation with morphological and clinical characteristics of EC. The study included 158 patients with EC after surgical treatments: total hysterectomy and lymphadenectomy. The percentages of EC specimens testing positively for the EMT transcription factors were 84.5% for SNAIL, 92.2% for SLUG, 10.9% for TWIST1, 100% for TWIST2, 89% for ZEB1, and 98% for ZEB2. The expression of SLUG in patients with FIGO stage III or IV, type II EC, myometrial of the uterine wall thickness, and adnexal involvement and in patients with distant metastases was significantly higher. SLUG and ZEB2 expressions were identified as significant predictors of higher FIGO stages (III or IV) on univariate analysis. The overexpression of SLUG was a significant predictor of more aggressive type II EC, of the uterine wall thickness, and distant metastases on both univariate and multivariate analysis. Moreover, the overexpression of SLUG and ZEB2 was shown to be significant predictors of adnexal involvement on univariate analysis. ZEB 2 overexpression was identified in multivariate analysis as another independent predictor associated with a lesser likelihood of type II EC. Both univariate and multivariate analyses demonstrated that SLUG expression was the only predictor of 5-year survival in the study group. The overexpression of SLUG was associated with a significant increase in mortality hazard on univariate analysis and was shown to be a highly significant predictor of death on multivariate analysis. Conclusions. Selected proteins of the EMT pathway play a role in endometrial carcinogenesis; SLUG and ZEB2 expressions in the primary tumor might predict clinical outcomes in EC and drive therapeutic decisions regarding adjuvant treatment in patients with this malignancy.

1. Introduction

Endometrial cancer (EC) is the most common gynecologic malignancy in developed countries, representing nearly 5% of all female cancers and being responsible for more than 2% of cancer-related deaths in women worldwide [1]. The incidence and mortality of EC have been increasing in recent years and are expected to increase even further [25]. In 75% of patients, EC is diagnosed after menopause and in 15% during their reproductive years [6, 7]. Most ECs are detected at early stages when a curative resection is a feasible option in most cases. While 5-year survival rate in such patients approximates 95%, it decreases down to 16-45% in women with advanced late-stage EC [810].

EC can be classified into two types, type I and type II. Type I EC is endometrioid cancer (G1 or G2) with a hormonal etiology. The more aggressive type (type II EC) is a G3 malignancy with endometrioid, clear cell, or serous phenotype [11]. The type II tumors are estrogen-independent and associated with endometrial atrophy [12]. Most of type I ECs have a significantly better prognosis than the type II malignancies [13, 14]. Type I EC usually has a characteristic clinical profile; it is found in younger patients, most of whom have an identifiable source of excess estrogen, and endometrioid histologic subtypes are overwhelmingly more common [15]. The foremost risk factor for endometrial cancer, obesity, is strongly related to circulating estrogen levels in postmenopausal women and seems to be associated with an increased risk of EC of any type [16, 17]. An increase in the relative risk of EC in younger patients has been estimated at 1.59 per 5 kg/m2 BMI [18]. Other hormone-related risk factors for EC include nulliparity and older age at menopause [19, 20]. The list of presumable protective factors includes oral contraceptives, cigarette smoking, and older age at the last birth [20, 21]. Compared with women with type I EC, patients with type II EC are older, which more often have normal body weight and non-Caucasian heritage [16].

The majority of EC patients are eligible for primary surgical treatment: total hysterectomy or salpingo-oophorectomy, combined with lymphadenectomy if warranted by the presence of relevant risk factors [22]. The examination of surgical specimens provides information about cancer stage, prognosis, and the necessity of adjuvant treatment to decrease the likelihood of recurrence in patients with high-risk tumors [23]. EC is often spread via the lymphatics, with lymphatic metastases found in approximately 25% of patients with G3 tumors. Myometrial invasion up to two-thirds of the uterine wall thickness and vascular invasion are associated with the lymphatic spread in 22% and 15% of the cases, respectively. While only pelvic lymph nodes are involved in two-thirds of patients with lymphatic spread, more than 10% of women with EC may present with isolated positive para-aortal nodes [24]. Thus, hysterectomy with bilateral adnexectomy and pelvic and para-aortal lymphadenectomy is a recommended treatment option in patients with G3 tumors or/and myometrial invasion exceeding 50% of the uterine wall thickness [2426]. In women with G1 or G2 tumors and more superficial myometrial invasion, hysterectomy with bilateral adnexectomy, but without lymphadenectomy, is a sufficient treatment option [27]. Radiotherapy is considered an effective adjuvant treatment option in EC [28].

Epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) is a reversible cellular process during which epithelial cells depolarize, lose cell-cell contacts, and gain a spindle-mesenchymal morphology. EMT and an opposite process, mesenchymal to epithelial transition (MET), are essential for several developmental events in the embryo, such as gastrulation, formation of neural crest cells from the neural tube, mesoderm and heart valve formation, and palatogenesis [29]. EMT is associated with the loss of epithelial morphology and cytoskeletal reorganization, which allows the cells to gain migratory potential and higher invasiveness. Aside from being a physiological developmental mechanism, EMT also plays a role in tumor growth and progression to metastatic cancer. The EMT is triggered by several transcription factors in different signaling pathways. Several transcription factors, among them SNAIL, SLUG, TWIST, and ZEB, were shown to play essential roles in EMT control, contributing to downregulation of E-cadherin. The loss of E-cadherin expression is considered a major event in the EMT.

As compared with other malignancies, still little is known about the role of EMT transcription factors in EC [30]; the aim of this study was to analyze the expression of these factors: SNAIL, SLUG, TWIST1, TWIST2, ZEB1, and ZEB 2 in primary EC. Moreover, we verified whether the expression of the EMT transcription factors correlated with morphological and clinical characteristics of EC.

2. Methods

The study included 158 patients with EC, diagnosed, and treated at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Collegium Medicum in Bydgoszcz (Poland). The mean age of the study patients was 66 years (range 37-87 years). The mean age at the last menstruation was 51 years (range 37-59 years), and the median parity amounted to 2 (range 0-10). The mean BMI for the study group was 29.56 kg/m2 (range 19-42 kg/m2). Clinicopathological characteristics of the study patients are summarized in Table 1. All patients underwent surgical treatment: total hysterectomy and lymphadenectomy. Adjuvant treatment consisted of radiotherapy, administered in line with the guidelines of Polish Oncological Society [31]. The relationship between the protein expression and survival was analyzed after minimum 5-year follow-up. Immunohistochemical studies were performed on archival formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue specimens, obtained from the Department of Clinical Pathomorphology Collegium Medicum, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Torun, Poland.


Feature%

StageI7547
II3422
III3824
IV117

Grade196
210572
33222

Bokham subtypeI11875
II4025

LVSINegative12982
Positive2918

Meta at lymph nodesNo12482
Yes2818

Distant metastasesNo13791
Yes149

Infiltration of myometrium<50%4830
≧50%11070

Infiltration of cervixNo9561
Yes6239

Infiltration of adnexaNo13487
Yes2013

LVSI: lymphovascular space invasion.
2.1. Tissue Macroarrays

Representative tumor areas were selected from the archival paraffin blocks (donor blocks). Tissue macroarrays (TMaAs) were obtained by transferring tissue fragments from the donor blocs to previously prepared recipient blocs. Each recipient block was composed of representative tissue from five EC patients. The representative tissue was reembedded in paraffin to obtain recipient blocks. Next, the TMaA block was cut into 4 μm thick sections, using a rotary microtome (Accu-Cut® SRM™ 200; Sakura, Torrance, CA, USA). The sections were transferred on extra-adhesive slides (Superfrost Plus; Mensel-Glazer, Braunschweig, Germany) and left for one hour on a heating plate set at 60°C.

2.2. Immunohistochemical Staining (IHC)

Immunohistochemical staining was performed according to the protocol described previously [32], using the primary rabbit polyclonal anti-SNAIL (1 : 100, 45 min, NBP1-80022, Novus Biologicals) antibody, mouse monoclonal anti-SLUG (1 : 200, 30 min, NBP2-03886, Novus Biologicals) antibody, mouse monoclonal anti-TWIST1 (1 : 20, 60 min, ab50887, Abcam) antibody, mouse monoclonal anti-TWIST2 (1 : 200, 45 min, ab57997, Abcam) antibody, rabbit polyclonal anti-ZEB1 (1 : 500, 30 min, HPA027524, Sigma-Aldrich) antibody, and rabbit polyclonal anti-ZEB2 (1 : 100, 45 min, HPA003456, Sigma-Aldrich) antibody. The antibody complexes were detected using an EnVision Flex Anti-Mouse/Rabbit HRP-Labeled Polymer (Dako; Agilent Technologies, Inc.) and localized using 3,3-diaminobenzidine (DAB) as the chromogen. The staining for SNAIL, SLUG, TWIST1, TWIST2, ZEB1, and ZEB2 was performed automatically in AutostainerLink48 (Dako; Agilent Technologies, Inc.). To standardize the immunohistochemical procedures, a series of positive and negative control reactions were carried out. Positive controls were tissue models in which the presence of analyzed antigens was indicated in reference sources (The Human Protein Atlas: https://www.proteinatlas.org.) as well as in the respective antibody datasheet. Negative control was obtained by substituting the primary antibody with a 1% bovine serum albumin (BSA) diluted in phosphate-buffered saline (PBS).

2.3. Evaluation of Immunohistochemical Reactions

The antibody-labeled slides were evaluated by two independent pathologists under a low-power (×20) ECLIPSE E800 light microscope (Nikon Instruments Europe, Amsterdam, Netherlands). In addition, low and negative-intensity slides were evaluated in high-power magnification (x40). The immunoexpression of analyzed proteins in EC macroarrays was quantified using Remmele-Stegner (IRS) scoring system. The IRS score for each macroarray spot was calculated by multiplying staining intensity (, , , and ) by the proportion of positively stained cells (–9%, –50%, –80%, and –100%); hence, the final scores might vary between 0 and 12. Statistical analysis included a mean IRS score for all tissue macroarrays [33].

2.4. Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis was carried out with PQStat package, version 1.6.4.110. The effect of grouping clinicopathological variables on the immunoexpression of studied proteins was analyzed with the Mann-Whitney -test. The relationship between analyzed proteins and established unfavorable prognostic factors in EC was estimated using univariate and multivariate logistic regression models. The relationship between the protein expression and survival was analyzed with univariate and multivariate Cox proportional-hazards models. Survivals of patients with weaker and stronger expressions of SLUG were compared with log-rank, Wilcoxon-Breslow-Gehan, and Taron-Ware tests. The results of all tests were considered significant at and highly significant at .

2.5. Ethics

The protocol of the study was approved by the Local Bioethics Committee at the Nicolaus Copernicus University, Collegium Medicum in Bydgoszcz.

3. Results

In this study, the immunoexpressions of several EMT proteins: SLUG, SNAIL, TWIST1, TWIST2, ZEB1, and ZEB2, were evaluated in primary ECs. The percentages of EC specimens testing positively for the EMT transcription factors were 84.5% for SNAIL, 92.2% for SLUG, 10.9% for TWIST1, 100% for TWIST2, 89% for ZEB1, and 98% for ZEB2. In the case of SNAIL, SLUG, TWIST1, and ZEB1, the immunoexpression was found in the cell nuclei and in the case of TWIST2 and ZEB2 in the cytoplasm. Representative immunohistochemical reactions for various proteins are shown in Figures 16.

The expression of SLUG differed significantly () depending on clinical FIGO stage. The expression in patients with FIGO stage III or IV was significantly higher than that in those with less-advanced ECs. The SLUG expression was also significantly higher () in type II ECs than in type I malignancies. No statistically significant differences in the SLUG expression were found after stratifying the immunohistochemical results according to histological grade, lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI), cervical invasion, and lymph node involvement. The expressions of SLUG in patients with myometrial of the uterine wall thickness and adnexal involvement were significantly higher () than those in those without these unfavorable prognostic factors. The expression of SLUG was also significantly higher in patients with distant metastases () (Table 2). No significant associations were found between the clinicopathological characteristics of EC patients and the expressions of TWIST1, TWIST2, ZEB1, and SNAIL.


MeanStandard deviation (SD)MinimumLower quartile (Q1)Median (Me)Upper quartile (Q3)MaximumMann-Whitney -test

Total7.303.930481212

FIGO stageI+II6.823.85047912
III+IV8.353.94068.51212

Bokhman subtypeI6.643.85046912
II9.183.570810.51212

GradingG1+G27.083.980481212
G37.683.970481212

LVSIPositive7.153.940481212
Negative7.963.910681212

Myometrial invasion<50%6.043.9203.256912
≥50%7.833.830481212

Cervical involvementNo6.864.000481212
Yes8.003.780481212

Infiltration of adnexaNo7.053.910481212
Yes9.003.3907.591212

Lymph nodes metastasesNo6.943.81048912
Yes8.334.4305121212

Distant metastasesNo6.993.990481212
Yes9.862.6668121212

FIGO: Federation Internationale de Gynecologie et d’Obstetrique; LVSI: lymphovascular space invasion.

ZEB2 expression was significantly higher in patients with adnexal involvement than in those without. Other clinicopathological variables (FIGO stage, Bokhman type, histological grade, LVSI, myometrial of the uterine wall thickness, cervical invasion, lymph node involvement, and distant metastases) did not exert a significant effect on ZEB2 expression (Table 3).


MeanStandard deviation (SD)MinimumLower quartile (Q1)Median (me)Upper quartile (Q3)MaximumMann-Whitney -test

Total5.132.0204488

FIGO stageI+II4.912.0204478
III+IV5.631.9534488

Bokhman subtypeI5.041.9704488
II5.652.1124488

GradingG1+G25.252.0904488
G34.781.781444.58

LVSIPositive5.202.0904488
Negative4.791.662444.58

Myometrial invasion<50%5.082.0104488
≥50%5.411.9734488

Cervical involvementNo5.112.0004488
Yes5.502.0334488

Infiltration of adnexaNo5.222.0114488
Yes5.092.0304488

Lymph nodes metastasesNo4.921.9004468
Yes5.462.1704488

Distant metastasesNo5.012.0104488
Yes6.001.9544688

FIGO: Federation Internationale de Gynecologie et d’Obstetrique; LVSI: lymphovascular space invasion.

SLUG and ZEB2 expressions were identified as significant predictors of higher FIGO stages (III or IV) on univariate analysis (). Patients with FIGO stage III or IV were more likely to present with SLUG and ZEB2 overexpression. Multivariate analysis identified SLUG overexpression as the only significant independent predictor of the higher clinical stage () (Tables 4 and 5).


coefficient valueOdds ratio-95% CI+95% CI

Intercept-1,1440,05270,31860,10011,0135
TWIST 20,05320,54141,05460,88911,251
Intercept-0,7336<0,00010,48020,33760,683
TWIST 1-0,25090,24060,77810,51181,1831
Intercept-1,5880,00010,20430,0910,4588
SLUG0,10460,02641,11031,01231,2177
Intercept-1,73660,00050,17610,06590,471
ZEB 20,17770,04171,19451,00671,4173
Intercept-0,53270,1380,5870,29041,1868
ZEB 1-0,06230,39930,93960,8131,086
Intercept-0,59270,07090,55280,29061,0518
SNAIL-0,05480,47990,94670,81311,1022

CI: confidence interval.

coefficient valueOdds ratio-95% CI+95% CI

Intercept-2,03220,01110,1310,02730,6285
TWIST 20,04120,67221,0420,86111,2611
TWIST 1-0,21120,37810,80960,50621,2949
SLUG0,10360,03771,10921,00591,223
ZEB 20,13750,15481,14740,94941,3866
ZEB 1-0,04620,57920,95490,81111,1241
SNAIL-0,07520,40560,92750,77681,1075

CI: confidence interval.

The overexpression of SLUG was also a significant predictor of more aggressive type II EC on both univariate and multivariate analyses (). Another independent predictor identified on the multivariate analysis was ZEB2 overexpression which turned out to be associated with a lesser likelihood of type II EC () (Tables 6 and 7).


coefficient valueOdds ratio-95% CI+95% CI

Intercept-0,6570,2670,51840,16251,6539
TWIST 2-0,0630,48250,93890,78751,1195
Intercept-1,0878<0,00010,3370,23130,491
TWIST 10,08430,54381,08790,82871,4282
Intercept-2,5356<0,00010,07920,0290,2161
SLUG0,18660,00071,20521,08181,3427
Intercept-0,44860,36710,63850,24091,6926
ZEB 2-0,12120,19910,88580,73621,0659
Intercept-0,88810,01930,41150,19550,8659
ZEB 1-0,03880,61750,9620,82621,12
Intercept-1,26540,00040,28210,1410,5647
SNAIL0,05790,46271,05960,90791,2366

CI: confidence interval.

coefficient valueOdds ratio-95% CI+95% CI

Intercept-1,31110,12730,26950,051,4538
TWIST 2-0,03710,72250,96350,7851,1827
TWIST 10,15210,39271,16430,82151,6502
SLUG0,22770,00011,25571,11921,4089
ZEB 2-0,24120,03070,78570,63130,9778
ZEB 1-0,11830,19870,88840,74171,0641
SNAIL0,09990,26311,10510,92771,3165

CI: confidence interval.

Univariate analysis demonstrated that the overexpression of SLUG was associated with a significantly higher likelihood of myometrial of the uterine wall thickness (). Multivariate analysis confirmed that the overexpression of SLUG was a significant independent predictor of the deep myometrial invasion (); the lesser likelihood of the deep myometrial invasion was in turn independently predicted by TWIST2 overexpression () (Tables 8 and 9). The overexpression of SLUG and ZEB2 was shown to be significant predictors of adnexal involvement on univariate analysis () (Tables 10 and 11). The overexpression of SLUG was also identified as the only significant predictor of distant metastases on both univariate and multivariate analyses () (Tables 12 and 13). None of the analyzed proteins turned out to be a significant () predictor of LVSI, cervical invasion, and lymph node involvement.


coefficient valueOdds ratio-95% CI+95% CI

Intercept1,78350,00485,95051,724520,5328
TWIST 2-0,14130,12190,86820,72581,0385
Intercept0,877<0,00012,40361,67833,4424
TWIST 1-0,03970,77580,96110,73151,2628
Intercept0,03450,92251,03520,51612,0761
SLUG0,11780,01081,12511,02761,2318
Intercept1,02220,03492,77941,07537,184
ZEB 2-0,03090,72250,96950,81731,1501
Intercept0,34320,34231,40950,69412,8622
ZEB 10,12230,11041,13010,97251,3132
Intercept0,91940,0062,50791,30154,8324
SNAIL-0,01780,81590,98240,8461,1408

CI: confidence interval.

coefficient valueOdds ratio-95% CI+95% CI

Intercept0,89420,25572,44550,523211,4298
TWIST 2-0,22340,03450,79980,65020,9838
TWIST 1-0,1230,49940,88430,61891,2635
SLUG0,1330,00851,14231,03451,2614
ZEB 2-0,01850,84880,98170,81171,1873
ZEB 10,16790,05481,18290,99661,4039
SNAIL-0,02760,75000,97280,82111,1526

CI: confidence interval.

coefficient valueOdds ratio-95% CI+95% CI

Intercept-2,18110,00980,11290,02160,5912
TWIST 20,04630,70671,04740,82291,3333
Intercept-1,8675<0,00010,15450,09490,2515
TWIST 1-0,03680,8620,96390,63651,4597
Intercept-3,0314<0,00010,04820,01310,1771
SLUG0,14380,04081,15461,0061,3252
Intercept-3,2094<0,00010,04040,00940,1733
ZEB 20,24180,04371,27361,00681,6109
Intercept-1,37510,00330,25280,10110,632
ZEB 1-0,12180,23660,88530,72371,0831
Intercept-1,9968<0,00010,13580,05270,3496
SNAIL0,03320,76171,03370,83431,2807

CI: confidence interval.

coefficient valueOdds ratio-95% CI+95% CI

Intercept-3,48970,00260,03050,00310,2961
TWIST 2-0,01020,94120,98990,75541,2972
TWIST 10,0280,91021,02840,63191,6738
SLUG0,13430,06191,14380,99341,317
ZEB 20,18050,17181,19780,92461,5517
ZEB 1-0,15470,21460,85670,6711,0937
SNAIL0,06670,60591,0690,82981,3771

CI: confidence interval.

coefficient valueOdds ratio-95% CI+95% CI

Intercept-2,88990,00450,05560,00760,4076
TWIST 20,09670,50851,10150,82711,4669
Intercept-2,1927<0,00010,11160,06340,1964
TWIST 1-0,2770,50420,75810,33631,7088
Intercept-4,1797<0,00010,01530,00240,0972
SLUG0,22560,01531,2531,04411,5037
Intercept-2,7670,00060,06280,01290,3063
ZEB 20,09580,48981,10060,83851,4444
Intercept-2,926<0,00010,05360,01480,1944
ZEB 10,14080,23041,15120,91461,449
Intercept-2,2616<0,00010,10420,03690,2939
SNAIL0,00280,98161,00280,79151,2705

CI: confidence interval.

coefficient valueOdds ratio-95% CI+95% CI

Intercept-5,19860,00120,00550,00020,1295
TWIST 20,05140,75051,05280,76681,4455
TWIST 1-0,33480,47950,71550,28281,8098
SLUG0,23570,01711,26581,04281,5363
ZEB 20,03260,84381,03320,74671,4295
ZEB 10,14890,26651,16060,89251,5093
SNAIL-0,0560,68880,94550,71871,2438

CI: confidence interval.

Both univariate and multivariate analyses demonstrated that SLUG expression was the only predictor of 5-year survival in the study group. The overexpression of SLUG was associated with a significant increase in mortality hazard on univariate analysis () and was shown to be a highly significant predictor of death on multivariate analysis () (Tables 14 and 15). The probability of survival in patients with SLUG and ≥6 is depicted in Figure 7. Highly significant differences in the survivals of the two groups were confirmed with log-rank, Wilcoxon-Breslow-Gehan, and Taron-Ware tests ().


coefficient valueHR-95% CI+95% CI

TWIST 20,06230,46781,06430,89951,2592
TWIST 1-14,1490,98750,00000,00000,0000
SLUG0,11570,01381,12261,02391,2309
ZEB 2-0,02740,73930,9730,8281,1434
ZEB 10,05580,41761,05740,92391,2102
SNAIL0,03630,61431,0370,90041,1943

CI: confidence interval; HR: hazard ratio.

coefficient valueHR-95% CI+95% CI

TWIST 20,04790,6011,0490,87671,2552
TWIST 1-13,630,98161,2E-60NA
SLUG0,13740,00521,14721,04181,2633
ZEB 2-0,11080,22170,89510,74941,0692
ZEB 10,01260,8621,01270,87831,1677
SNAIL0,06480,44371,06690,9041,2592

CI: confidence interval; HR: hazard ratio.

4. Discussion

Tumor microenvironment parameters, in particular, changes in tumor cells-stromal cells interactions, play a crucial role in the development of epithelial malignancies [34]. Mesenchymal cells are essential for the control of epithelial growth, differentiation and function, and abnormal mesenchymal-epithelial interactions found in various human tumors, including EC [35, 36]. Metastatic spread results from a series of linked, sequential, and selective steps involving cell migration, invasion, adhesion, and proliferation, as well as angiogenesis. Invasion, which is a critical step in the metastatic cascade, requires the interaction of tumor cells with their environment [37]. EMT is the essential initial step of malignant transformation, during which the cells acquire invasiveness and metastatic potential by losing epithelial polarity and reducing intercellular adhesion [38, 39]. Many studies showed that EMT is involved in tumorigenesis and development of EC [40]. Downregulation of E-cadherin is considered a classical molecular switch for EMT and has been implicated in the invasion and spread of EC [41, 42].

Several transcription factors, among them the members of SLUG, SNAIL, ZEB, and TWIST families, have been implicated in the transcriptional repression of E-cadherin in a broad spectrum of human cancers and were shown to be associated with aggressive tumor behavior and poor prognosis [4345]. In our present study, the expression of the EMT transcription factors was found in the vast majority of tissue samples, which implies that EMT plays a critical role in endometrial carcinogenesis. Moreover, the expression of SLUG turned out to be significantly higher in patients with FIGO stages III and IV, as well as in those with type II EC. It needs to be emphasized that we determined the expressions of EMT transcription factors in a relatively large group of patients with advanced EC. EMT, promoted by several transcription factors, causes downregulation of epithelial marker genes and contributes to the establishment of a mesenchymal phenotype [46]. SNAIL and SLUG, belonging to the group of zinc finger-type proteins, are regarded as major EMT inducers that inhibit the transcription of cell adhesion molecules, among them is E-cadherin [47]. As potent E-cadherin repressors, those proteins contribute to the loss of tight junctions between epithelial cells and initiate EMT, which facilitates cancer cell invasion and formation of distant metastases [48, 49]. The EMT signaling pathways may be activated by several cytokines or growth factors present in the local microenvironment, followed by the interaction with transforming growth factor-beta (TGF-β), bone morphogenetic protein, Wnt/β-catenin pathway, Notch, Hedgehog, and RTKs [47, 50]. Some signaling pathways, such as the phosphoinositide 3-kinase/protein kinase B (PI3K/AKT) pathway, upregulate SNAIL and SLUG, whereas the estrogen receptor is known to repress the transcription of those proteins [51, 52]. Importantly, the overexpression of SLUG can be mediated by various mechanisms; for example, 17b-estradiol is known to increase the expression of vimentin and SLUG and to decrease the expression of E-cadherin, which leads to the inhibition of EMT and estrogen-induced EMT in EC cells [53]. Also, transforming growth factor-beta (TGF-β) was shown to be an EMT inducer which downregulates E-cadherin, upregulates SLUG, and stimulates cell invasion in EC; the TGF-b-induced cell invasion could be prevented through SLUG depletion caused by siRNA knockdown [54].

Our present study demonstrated that myometrial invasion exceeding 50% of the uterine wall thickness and adnexal involvement were associated with a significant increase in SLUG expression. In turn, the overexpression of TWIST2 correlated with a lesser risk of deep myometrial infiltration in EC patients. A significant increase in SLUG expression was also observed in patients with distant metastases. Adnexal involvement was also shown to be associated with a significant increase in ZEB2 expression. Our findings are consistent with the results published by other authors, according to whom the deep myometrial invasion was associated with SLUG overexpression and a concomitant decrease in E-cadherin level [55]. Recent studies showed that SLUG plays a role not only in cancer spread but also in cancer stemness [56, 57]; this suggests that the protein might be involved in the early stages of cancer progression. SLUG is known to suppress both p53-dependent and p53-independent apoptotic pathways [58]. Tumors expressing SLUG might display some characteristics of cancer stem cells, such as therapeutic resistance and ability to recur. The overexpression of E-cadherin transcription repressors, TWIST, SNAIL, and SLUG, was observed in both EC cell lines and tumor samples, and downregulation of E-cadherin was demonstrated in either endometrioid or nonendometrioid ECs. Hence, SLUG might play a significant role in the development of therapeutic resistance and contribute to poor prognosis in a subset of high-grade ECs. Despite complete resection, patients with the extrauterine disease are assumed to present with micrometastases, and thus, are at increased risk of tumor recurrence; if the primary malignancy overexpresses SLUG, the recurrent tumor is likely to be resistant to adjuvant therapy [59]. ZEB1 and ZEB2 are transcriptional repressors of E-cadherin in a miR-200-dependent mechanism. The inhibition of miR-200 results in the downregulation of E-cadherin through upregulation of its transcriptional repressors, ZEB1 and ZEB2. Hence, the ZEB proteins and miR-200 are considered a driving force for cancer progression and spread by controlling the state of cancer stem cells [60, 61].

In our present study, SLUG was the only protein, the expression of which was identified as a significant predictor of 5-year survival on both univariate and multivariate analyses. The overexpression of SLUG was associated with a significant increase in mortality hazard. This implies that the expression of SLUG may be an important determinant of survival in EC. Some clinicopathological parameters, identified as independent predictors of overall survival and disease-free survival in EC, among them patient age, tumor grade, histological type, and LVSI, are considered decisive factors during the selection of surgical treatment and adjuvant therapy options [62]. Established prognostic factors for the recurrence and spread of EC include surgical FIGO stage, tumor grade, histological type, and myometrial and lymphovascular invasion [63, 64]. Our findings suggest that the inclusion of SLUG and ZEB2 expressions in the armamentarium of routinely performed immunohistochemical tests might contribute to more accurate prognosis and facilitate the planning of adjuvant therapy, especially in patients with advanced clinical stages of type I EC and those with type II malignancies.

5. Conclusions

(1)Selected proteins of the EMT pathway play a role in endometrial carcinogenesis(2)SLUG and ZEB2 expressions in the primary tumor might predict clinical outcomes in EC and drive therapeutic decisions regarding adjuvant treatment in patients with this malignancy

Data Availability

The data used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

None is declared.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge Prof. Marek Grabiec and Dr. Hab Dariusz Grzanka for their keen interest, inspiring guidance, and consist encouragement.

References

  1. J. Ferlay, I. Soerjomataram, R. Dikshit et al., “Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012,” International Journal of Cancer, vol. 136, no. 5, pp. E359–E386, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  2. R. L. Siegel, K. D. Miller, and A. Jemal, “Cancer statistics, 2017,” CA: a Cancer Journal for Clinicians, vol. 67, no. 1, pp. 7–30, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  3. J. Lortet-Tieulent, J. Ferlay, F. Bray, and A. Jemal, “International patterns and trends in endometrial cancer incidence, 1978-2013,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute, vol. 110, no. 4, pp. 354–361, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  4. C. R. Smittenaar, K. A. Petersen, K. Stewart, and N. Moitt, “Cancer incidence and mortality projections in the UK until 2035,” British Journal of Cancer, vol. 115, no. 9, pp. 1147–1155, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  5. M. A. Sheikh, A. D. Althouse, K. E. Freese et al., “USA endometrial cancer projections to 2030: should we be concerned?” Future Oncology, vol. 10, no. 16, pp. 2561–2568, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  6. R. L. Siegel, S. S. Devesa, V. Cokkinides, J. Ma, and A. Jemal, “State-level uterine corpus cancer incidence rates corrected for hysterectomy prevalence, 2004 to 2008,” Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 25–31, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  7. C. E. DeSantis, C. C. Lin, A. B. Mariotto et al., “Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2014,” CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, vol. 64, no. 4, pp. 252–271, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  8. A. Yeramian, G. Moreno-Bueno, X. Dolcet et al., “Endometrial carcinoma: molecular alterations involved in tumor development and progression,” Oncogene, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 403–413, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  9. F. Bray, J. Ferlay, I. Soerjomataram, R. L. Siegel, L. A. Torre, and A. Jemal, “Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries,” CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, vol. 68, no. 6, pp. 394–424, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  10. E. Weiderpass, J. Antoine, F. I. Bray, J. K. Oh, and M. Arbyn, “Trends in corpus uteri cancer mortality in member states of the European Union,” European Journal of Cancer, vol. 50, no. 9, pp. 1675–1684, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  11. L. A. Brinton, A. S. Felix, D. S. McMeekin et al., “Etiologic heterogeneity in endometrial cancer: evidence from a Gynecologic Oncology Group trial,” Gynecologic Oncology, vol. 129, no. 2, pp. 277–284, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  12. J. V. Bokhman, “Two pathogenetic types of endometrial carcinoma,” Gynecologic Oncology, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 10–17, 1983. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  13. A. Alkushi, Z. H. Abdul-Rahman, P. Lim et al., “Description of a novel system for grading of endometrial carcinoma and comparison with existing grading systems,” The American Journal of Surgical Pathology, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 295–304, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  14. A. N. Scholten, V. T. Smit, H. Beerman, W. L. van Putten, and C. L. Creutzberg, “Prognostic significance and interobserver variability of histologic grading systems for endometrial carcinoma,” Cancer, vol. 100, no. 4, pp. 764–772, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  15. P. T. Soliman, J. C. Oh, K. M. Schmeler et al., “Risk factors for young premenopausal women with endometrial cancer,” Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 105, no. 3, pp. 575–580, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  16. V. W. Setiawan, H. P. Yang, M. C. Pike et al., “Type I and II endometrial cancers: have they different risk factors?” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 31, no. 20, pp. 2607–2618, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  17. M. P. Madigan, R. Troisi, N. Potischman, J. F. Dorgan, L. A. Brinton, and R. N. Hoover, “Serum hormone levels in relation to reproductive and lifestyle factors in postmenopausal women (United States),” Cancer Causes & Control, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 199–207, 1998. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  18. S. Topuz, H. Sozen, D. Vatansever et al., “Do obesity and age effect the clinicopathological features and survival outcomes in premenopausal women with endometrial cancer?” European Journal of Gynaecological Oncology, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 320–326, 2016. View at: Google Scholar
  19. S. J. Schonfeld, P. Hartge, R. M. Pfeiffer et al., “An aggregated analysis of hormonal factors and endometrial cancer risk by parity,” Cancer, vol. 119, no. 7, pp. 1393–1401, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  20. H. P. Yang, N. Wentzensen, B. Trabert et al., “Endometrial cancer risk factors by 2 main histologic subtypes,” American Journal of Epidemiology, vol. 177, no. 2, pp. 142–151, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  21. V. W. Setiawan, M. C. Pike, S. Karageorgi et al., “Age at last birth in relation to risk of endometrial cancer: pooled analysis in the epidemiology of endometrial cancer consortium,” American Journal of Epidemiology, vol. 176, no. 4, pp. 269–278, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  22. Uterine neoplasms, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology, December 2016. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/uterine.pdf.
  23. J. D. Wright, N. I. B. Medel, J. Sehouli, K. Fujiwara, and T. J. Herzog, “Contemporary management of endometrial cancer,” Lancet, vol. 379, no. 9823, pp. 1352–1360, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  24. A. Mariani, S. C. Dowdy, W. A. Cliby et al., “Prospective assessment of lymphatic dissemination in endometrial cancer: a paradigm shift in surgical staging,” Gynecologic Oncology, vol. 109, no. 1, pp. 11–18, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  25. H. Gao and Z. Zhang, “Laparoscopy versus laparotomy in the treatment of high-risk endometrial cancer,” Medicine, vol. 94, no. 30, article e1245, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  26. A. Mariani, M. J. Webb, L. Galli, and K. C. Podratz, “Potential therapeutic role of para-aortic lymphadenectomy in node-positive endometrial cancer,” Gynecologic Oncology, vol. 76, no. 3, pp. 348–356, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  27. G. H. Eltabbakh, M. S. Piver, R. E. Hempling, and K. H. Shin, “Excellent long-term survival and absence of vaginal recurrences in 332 patients with low-risk stage I endometrial adenocarcinoma treated with hysterectomy and vaginal brachytherapy without formal staging lymph node sampling: report of a prospective trial,” International Journal of Radiation Oncology • Biology • Physics, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 373–380, 1997. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  28. A. Mariani, M. J. Webb, G. L. Keeney, M. G. Haddock, G. Calori, and K. C. Podratz, “Low-risk corpus cancer: is lymphadenectomy or radiotherapy necessary?” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 182, no. 6, pp. 1506–1519, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  29. L. Larue and A. Bellacosa, “Epithelial-mesenchymal transition in development and cancer: role of phosphatidylinositol 3 kinase/AKT pathways,” Oncogene, vol. 24, no. 50, pp. 7443–7454, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  30. E. Colas, N. Pedrola, L. Devis et al., “The EMT signaling pathways in endometrial carcinoma,” Clinical and Translational Oncology, vol. 14, no. 10, pp. 715–720, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  31. J. J. Sznurkowski, P. Knapp, L. Bodnar et al., “Recommendations of the Polish Gynecological Oncology Society for the diagnosis andtreatment of endometrial cancer,” Current Gynecologic Oncology, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 34–44, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  32. P. Sadlecki, J. Jóźwicki, P. Antosik, and M. Grabiec, “Expression of selected epithelial-mesenchymal transition transcription factors in serous borderline ovarian tumors and type I ovarian cancers,” Tumor Biology, vol. 40, no. 6, article 101042831878480, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  33. W. Remmele and H. E. Stegner, “Recommendation for uniform definition of an immunoreactive score (IRS) for immunohistochemical estrogen receptor detection (ER-ICA) in breast cancer tissue,” Pathologe, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 138–140, 1987. View at: Google Scholar
  34. M. Shi, H. Zhang, M. Li et al., “Normal endometrial stromal cells regulate survival and apoptosis signaling through PI3K/AKt/ Survivin pathway in endometrial adenocarcinoma cells in vitro,” Gynecologic Oncology, vol. 123, no. 2, pp. 387–392, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  35. P. Sadlecki, M. Grabiec, D. Grzanka, J. Jóźwicki, P. Antosik, and M. Walentowicz-Sadlecka, “Expression of zinc finger transcription factors (ZNF143 and ZNF281) in serous borderline ovarian tumors and low-grade ovarian cancers,” J Ovarian Res, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 23, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  36. T. Arnold Julia, A. Lessey Bruce, M. Seppala, and D. G. Kaufman, “Effect of normal endometrial stroma on growth and differentiation in Ishikawa endometrial adenocarcinoma cells,” Cancer Research, vol. 62, pp. 79–88, 2002. View at: Google Scholar
  37. E. C. Woodhouse, R. F. Chuaqui, and L. A. Liotta, “General mechanisms of metastasis,” Cancer, vol. 80, no. S8, pp. 1529–S1537, 1997. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  38. M. Tania, M. A. Khan, and J. Fu, “Epithelial to mesenchymal transition inducing transcription factors and metastatic cancer,” Tumor Biology, vol. 35, no. 8, pp. 7335–7342, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  39. J. J. Christiansen and A. K. Rajasekaran, “Reassessing epithelial to mesenchymal transition as a prerequisite for carcinoma invasion and metastasis,” Cancer Research, vol. 66, no. 17, pp. 8319–8326, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  40. M. Singh, N. S. Spoelstra, A. Jean et al., “ZEB1 expression in type I vs type II endometrial cancers: a marker of aggressive disease,” Modern Pathology, vol. 21, no. 7, pp. 912–923, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  41. S. Matsuzaki and C. Darcha, “Epithelial to mesenchymal transition-like and mesenchymal to epithelial transition-like processes might be involved in the pathogenesis of pelvic endometriosis,” Human Reproduction, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 712–721, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  42. A. Cano, M. A. Pérez-Moreno, I. Rodrigo et al., “The transcription factor Snail controls epithelial-mesenchymal transitions by repressing E-cadherin expression,” Nature Cell Biology, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 76–83, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  43. H. Peinado, D. Olmeda, and A. Cano, “Snail, Zeb and bHLH factors in tumour progression: an alliance against the epithelial phenotype?” Nature Reviews. Cancer, vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 415–428, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  44. A. G. de Herreros, S. Peiró, M. Nassour, and P. Savagner, “Snail family regulation and epithelial mesenchymal transitions in breast cancer progression,” Journal of Mammary Gland Biology and Neoplasia, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 135–147, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  45. E. Sánchez-Tilló, Y. Liu, O. de Barrios et al., “EMT-activating transcription factors in cancer: beyond EMT and tumor invasiveness,” Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences, vol. 69, no. 20, pp. 3429–3456, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  46. Y. Tanaka, Y. Terai, H. Kawaguchi et al., “Prognostic impact of EMT (epithelial-mesenchymal-transition)-related protein expression in endometrial cancer,” Cancer Biology & Therapy, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 13–19, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  47. D. M. Gonzalez and D. Medici, “Signaling mechanisms of the epithelial-mesenchymal transition,” Sci Signal, vol. 7, no. 344, p. re8, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  48. V. Bolos, H. Peinado, M. A. Perez-Moreno, M. F. Fraga, M. Esteller, and A. Cano, “The transcription factor Slug represses E-cadherin expression and induces epithelial to mesenchymal transitions: a comparison with Snail and E47 repressors,” Journal of Cell Science, vol. 116, no. 3, pp. 499–511, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  49. P. B. Gupta, C. Kuperwasser, J. P. Brunet et al., “The melanocyte differentiation program predisposes to metastasis after neoplastic transformation,” Nature Genetics, vol. 37, no. 10, pp. 1047–1054, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  50. L. Campo, C. Zhang, and E. K. Breuer, “EMT-Inducing Molecular Factors in Gynecological Cancers,” BioMed Research International, vol. 2015, Article 420891, pp. 1–12, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  51. A. Dhasarathy, M. Kajita, and P. A. Wade, “The transcription factor snail mediates epithelial to mesenchymal transitions by repression of estrogen receptor-alpha,” Molecular Endocrinology, vol. 21, no. 12, pp. 2907–2918, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  52. Y. Ye, Y. Xiao, W. Wang et al., “ERalpha signaling through slug regulates E-cadherin and EMT,” Oncogene, vol. 29, no. 10, pp. 1451–1462, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  53. H. Zhang, H. Li, S. Qi et al., “Normal endometrial stromal cells regulate 17β-estradiol-induced epithelial-mesenchymal transition via SLUG and E-cadherin in endometrial adenocarcinoma cells in vitro,” Gynecological Endocrinology, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 82–86, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  54. M. Huszar, M. Pfeifer, U. Schirmer et al., “Up-regulation of L1CAM is linked to loss of hormone receptors and E-cadherin in aggressive subtypes of endometrial carcinomas,” The Journal of Pathology, vol. 220, no. 5, pp. 551–561, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  55. N. Montserrat, A. Mozos, D. Llobet et al., “Epithelial to mesenchymal transition in early stage endometrioid endometrial carcinoma,” Human Pathology, vol. 43, no. 5, pp. 632–643, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  56. G. Storci, P. Sansone, D. Trere et al., “The basal-like breast carcinoma phenotype is regulated by SLUG gene expression,” The Journal of Pathology, vol. 214, no. 1, pp. 25–37, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  57. C. Yao, L. Su, J. Shan et al., “IGF/STAT3/NANOG/slug signaling axis simultaneously controls epithelial-mesenchymal transition and stemness maintenance in colorectal cancer,” Stem Cells, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 820–831, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  58. W. S. Wu, S. Heinrichs, D. Xu et al., “Slug antagonizes p53- mediated apoptosis of hematopoietic progenitors by repressing puma,” Cell, vol. 123, no. 4, pp. 641–653, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  59. A. Singh and J. Settleman, “EMT, cancer stem cells and drug resistance: an emerging axis of evil in the war on cancer,” Oncogene, vol. 29, no. 34, pp. 4741–4751, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  60. Y. Liu, F. Nan, K. Lu et al., “Identification of key genes in endometrioid endometrial adenocarcinoma via TCGA database,” Cancer Biomarkers, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 11–21, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  61. L. Alonso-Alconada, L. Muinelo-Romay, K. Madissoo et al., “Molecular profiling of circulating tumor cells links plasticity to the metastatic process in endometrial cancer,” Molecular Cancer, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 1–10, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  62. C. L. Creutzberg, W. L. van Putten, P. C. Koper et al., “Surgery and postoperative radiotherapy versus surgery alone for patients with stage-1 endometrial carcinoma: multicentre randomised trial,” Lancet, vol. 355, no. 9213, pp. 1404–1411, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  63. C. L. Kosary, “FIGO stage, histology, histologic grade, age and race as prognostic factors in determining survival for cancers of the female gynecological system: an analysis of 1973–87 SEER cases of cancers of the endometrium, cervix, ovary, vulva, and vagina,” Seminars in Surgical Oncology, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 31–46, 1994. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  64. J. Lindauer, J. M. Fowler, T. P. Manolitsas et al., “Is there a prognostic difference between depth of myometrial invasion and the tumor-free distance from the uterine serosa in endometrial cancer?” Gynecologic Oncology, vol. 91, no. 3, pp. 547–551, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright © 2020 Paweł Sadłecki et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


More related articles

 PDF Download Citation Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder
Views189
Downloads319
Citations

Related articles

Article of the Year Award: Outstanding research contributions of 2020, as selected by our Chief Editors. Read the winning articles.