Case Reports in Medicine

Case Reports in Medicine / 2014 / Article

Case Report | Open Access

Volume 2014 |Article ID 612496 |

J. Martin-Liberal, C. Benson, C. Messiou, C. Fisher, I. Judson, "Reversion of Hormone Treatment Resistance with the Addition of an mTOR Inhibitor in Endometrial Stromal Sarcoma", Case Reports in Medicine, vol. 2014, Article ID 612496, 5 pages, 2014.

Reversion of Hormone Treatment Resistance with the Addition of an mTOR Inhibitor in Endometrial Stromal Sarcoma

Academic Editor: Sarkis Meterissian
Received19 Feb 2014
Accepted30 Jun 2014
Published08 Jul 2014


Background. Endometrial stromal sarcomas (ESS) are a subtype of gynaecological sarcomas characterized by the overexpression of hormone receptors. Hormone treatment is widely used in ESS but primary or acquired resistance is common. The mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) pathway has been suggested to play a key role in the mechanisms of hormone resistance. Recent studies in breast and prostate cancer demonstrate that this resistance can be reversed with the addition of an mTOR inhibitor. This phenomenon has never been reported in ESS. Methods. We report the outcome of one patient with pretreated, progressing low grade metastatic ESS treated with medroxyprogesterone acetate in combination with the mTOR inhibitor sirolimus. Results. Partial response was achieved following the addition of sirolimus to the hormone treatment. Response has been maintained for more than 2 years with minimal toxicity and treatment is ongoing. Conclusion. This case suggests that the resistance to the hormone manipulation in ESS can be reversed by the addition of an mTOR pathway inhibitor. This observation is highly encouraging and deserves further investigation.

1. Introduction

Sarcomas are a heterogeneous group of more than 50 different malignancies characterized by their poor prognosis and the lack of effective treatments. They can arise anywhere in the body, and the uterus is one of the most common sites [1]. However, uterine sarcomas are rare and they constitute only 1% of female genital cancer and approximately 3–5% of all uterine malignancies [2]. Endometrial stromal sarcomas (ESS) account for approximately 10% of all uterine sarcomas [3] and they characteristically express hormone receptors (HR), that is, oestrogen (ER) and progesterone (PgR) receptors [4]. The expression of ER in ESS ranges between 40 and 80% and PgR is expressed in around 60–100% of cases [57]. In addition, ER and PgR expression have been positively correlated with survival in many studies [4, 8, 9]. Furthermore, it is known that uterine cell proliferation and differentiation are regulated in part by hormones. Therefore, the use of oestrogen modulation as an anticancer treatment is a rational therapeutic approach. Although there are no prospective randomised controlled trials of hormonal therapy in uterine sarcomas, a large number of studies have demonstrated its efficacy in ESS [5, 7, 1013]. Indeed, this therapeutic strategy is widely used given that response rates to chemotherapy are low [14, 15].

ESS are not the only hormone-driven malignancies [16]. Hormones also play a key role in a number of other tumours, especially prostate [17] and breast cancer [18].

The inhibition of the aromatase enzyme in breast cancer has significantly improved the outcome of the patients with HR positive tumours [1922]. Unfortunately, primary or acquired resistance to hormone treatment is not infrequent. Some studies suggest that this resistance might be mediated through the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) pathway [2325]. Thus, a study by Baselga et al. demonstrated that everolimus, an mTOR inhibitor, combined with an aromatase inhibitor (AI) significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with HR positive advanced breast cancer previously treated with AI [26]. Preclinical studies showed similar results also in prostate cancer [27].

This paradigm of hormone-resistance reversibility observed in breast cancer might be valid in other hormone-driven malignancies as well. We present here the first report ever in which a patient affected by an advanced ESS with a good initial response to hormone treatment benefited from control of her disease following addition of an mTOR inhibitor upon disease progression as defined by RECIST v1.1 [28].

2. Case Presentation

Our patient first presented at the age of 58 years with abdominal pain. A CT scan revealed a 12 cm cystic ovarian lesion. The mass was excised and histopathological analysis showed features consistent with low grade ESS with strong ER and PgR expression. The patient had undergone a total abdominal hysterectomy (TAH) and single oophorectomy 15 years earlier due to a supposed benign condition. Subsequently to the diagnosis of ESS, pathology review of the first operation confirmed low grade ESS. Adjuvant treatment was not prescribed.

Two years following ovarian surgery, the patient presented with right-sided abdominal pain. A new CT scan showed a  cm mass in the inferior pelvis and another mass of similar characteristics in the right iliac fossa. A second operation was performed and the 2 lesions were resected and the pathological analysis demonstrated relapse of her previous ESS with strong HR expression. Postoperative close surveillance and leuprorelin injections, a gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analog, were advised. Almost 1 year later, a further relapse in the form of several peritoneal deposits and recurrence of the pelvic mass was diagnosed on a CT scan. The disease was considered unresectable so the patient started treatment with an AI, letrozole 2.5 mg once daily (od). Her disease remained stable for 4 months and the patient did not experience any significant side effects. However, a new CT scan demonstrated progression of her pelvic disease. In addition, the patient reported new abdominal discomfort. A different hormonal manoeuvre was considered and medroxyprogesterone acetate 400 mg od was started. The abdominal symptoms completely disappeared soon after starting treatment in spite of not finding significant tumour changes in regular CT scans, being classified as stable disease (SD) by RECIST v1.1. Moreover, the patient tolerated the treatment well. Nevertheless, progression by RECIST v1.1 in the dominant peritoneal nodule located anteromedial to the splenic flexure was noted after 1 year of treatment: 2.8 cm in maximum diameter compared to 1.4 cm in previous CT scan (Figure 1). The pelvic mass showed no significant changes.

In order to maximize the benefit of the hormone treatment, the mTOR inhibitor sirolimus was added to continuing medroxyprogesterone acetate in an attempt to reverse the hormone resistance. The patient started the new treatment at 3 mg od with a plan to escalate the dose depending on tolerance. However, she developed grade 3 mucositis so had to reduce the dose to 2 mg od after a short drug holiday. Unfortunately, the mucositis was still intermittently severe so she was recommended to titrate the dose of sirolimus from 1 mg od to 2 mg od depending on toxicity. With this strategy, the patient has been able to tolerate the treatment without symptoms that significantly impair her quality of life. In addition, the imaging assessments have shown renewed control of her disease. Interestingly, the first assessment CT scan performed 4 months after the addition of sirolimus demonstrated a slight reduction in size of the dominant peritoneal nodule from 2.8 cm in maximum diameter to 2.5 cm, being stable by RECIST v1.1. Furthermore, assessment by Choi criteria [29], which incorporates attenuation changes, classified disease status as partial response at 4 months and further partial response at 13 months (Figure 1). In total, the patient has been on sirolimus and medroxyprogesterone acetate for more than 2 years with acceptable tolerance and control of her disease. Her treatment is still ongoing.

3. Discussion

This report suggests for the first time that the resistance to the hormone treatment can be reversed by the addition of an mTOR inhibitor in other tumours apart from breast cancer. This is especially relevant in malignancies like ESS where treatment alternatives are very scarce.

The lack of effective therapeutic options makes ESS a challenging disease [30]. Although ESS tend to have an indolent course, with 5-year disease specific survival of around 90% for stages I-II and 50% for stages III-IV [31], their treatment is generally hindered by their poor responsiveness to chemotherapy [32]. Hormone treatment is considered as a valid approach depending on the hormonal status, setting (adjuvant or recurrent/metastatic), volume, and pace of the disease [2]. The maximization of the hormone treatment is crucial since these patients may benefit longer without the side effects of the chemotherapy if the hormone resistance is reversed. In breast cancer, it has been demonstrated that oestrogen-independent phosphorylation of ER-α, specifically on Ser167, is one of the contributing causes to development of hormone resistance, as well as a prognostic marker [33]. This phosphorylation is mediated by a substrate of mTOR complex 1 (mTORC1) called S6 kinase 1 (S6K1) [34]. Therefore, inhibition of mTOR activity is a rational therapeutic approach in order to reverse the resistance to the hormone treatment.

Our patient may be a good example of this. However, since this is a report of a single patient, the results must be taken cautiously. The very nature of low grade ESS, with indolent courses in the majority of cases, may be responsible for the long period of stabilisation of disease in our patient. However, her tumour had progressed several times before the introduction of the mTOR inhibitor suggesting that this was not the case. Moreover, hormone treatment achieved periods of disease stabilisation, indicating sensitivity to this strategy. The new long-lasting control of the disease after the addition of sirolimus to the medroxyprogesterone acetate, with sustained response by Choi criteria [29], might be a sign of the reversion of the hormone resistance.

Another point worthy of debate is the value of mTOR inhibition alone in ESS. A positive phase III trial with the mTOR inhibitor ridaforolimus as maintenance treatment in sarcomas has recently been reported [35]. The overall benefit of the treatment was an improvement of only 3 weeks in PFS. These results are clearly insufficient but indicate that mTOR inhibitors have activity in sarcomas. However, neither in that trial nor in the preceding phase II study [36] patients affected by low grade ESS were enrolled. The term “sarcomas” encompasses more than 50 different malignancies with differing molecular biology, clinical behaviour, responsiveness to treatment, and prognosis, and there is no current evidence that inhibition of the mTOR pathway is an active therapeutic strategy in low grade ESS. Therefore, the sustained response experienced by our patient may be due to the reversion of hormone resistance by sirolimus, rather than to the activity of the mTOR inhibitor alone, in parallel to breast cancer [26].

In conclusion, our case suggests that the resistance to the hormone treatment in ESS can be reversed by the addition of an mTOR pathway inhibitor. In addition, it illustrates what is increasingly being supported in non-GIST soft-tissue sarcomas, which is the use of personalized tumour response criteria involving changes in density with or without changes in size (such as Choi criteria), rather than just assess differences in tumour measurements, like RECIST [37]. These observations, although not definitive, are highly encouraging and deserve further investigation.

Conflict of Interests

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper.


  1. A. Ferrari, I. Sultan, T. T. Huang et al., “Soft tissue sarcoma across the age spectrum: a population-based study from the surveillance epidemiology and end results database,” Pediatric Blood and Cancer, vol. 57, no. 6, pp. 943–949, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  2. E. Thanopoulou and I. Judson, “Hormonal therapy in gynecological sarcomas,” Expert Review of Anticancer Therapy, vol. 12, no. 7, pp. 885–894, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  3. E. D'Angelo and J. Prat, “Uterine sarcomas: a review,” Gynecologic Oncology, vol. 116, no. 1, pp. 131–139, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  4. R. Koivisto-Korander, R. Butzow, A. Koivisto, and A. Leminen, “Immunohistochemical studies on uterine carcinosarcoma, leiomyosarcoma, and endometrial stromal sarcoma: expression and prognostic importance of ten different markers,” Tumor Biology, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 451–459, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  5. M. C. Chu, G. Mor, C. Lim, W. Zheng, V. Parkash, and P. E. Schwartz, “Low-grade endometrial stromal sarcoma: hormonal aspects,” Gynecologic Oncology, vol. 90, no. 1, pp. 170–176, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  6. X. Cheng, G. Yang, K. M. Schmeler et al., “Recurrence patterns and prognosis of endometrial stromal sarcoma and the potential of tyrosine kinase-inhibiting therapy,” Gynecologic Oncology, vol. 121, no. 2, pp. 323–327, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  7. D. Pink, T. Lindner, A. Mrozek et al., “Harm or benefit of hormonal treatment in metastatic low-grade endometrial stromal sarcoma: Single center experience with 10 cases and review of the literature,” Gynecologic Oncology, vol. 101, no. 3, pp. 464–469, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  8. S. E. Akhan, E. Yavuz, A. Tecer et al., “The expression of Ki-67, p53, estrogen and progesterone receptors affecting survival in uterine leiomyosarcomas. A clinicopathologic study,” Gynecologic Oncology, vol. 99, no. 1, pp. 36–42, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  9. Y. J. Ioffe, A. J. Li, C. S. Walsh et al., “Hormone receptor expression in uterine sarcomas: prognostic and therapeutic roles,” Gynecologic Oncology, vol. 115, no. 3, pp. 466–471, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  10. J. Spano, J.-C. Soria, M. Kambouchner et al., “Long-term survival of patients given hormonal therapy for metastatic endometrial stromal sarcoma,” Medical Oncology, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 87–93, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  11. T. Dahhan, G. Fons, M. R. Buist, F. J. W. ten Kate, and J. van der Velden, “The efficacy of hormonal treatment for residual or recurrent low-grade endometrial stromal sarcoma. A retrospective study,” European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, vol. 144, no. 1, pp. 80–84, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  12. M. Leunen, M. Breugelmans, P. de Sutter, C. Bourgain, and J. J. Amy, “Low-grade endometrial stromal sarcoma treated with the aromatase inhibitor letrozole,” Gynecologic Oncology, vol. 95, no. 3, pp. 769–771, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  13. K. Shoji, K. Oda, S. Nakagawa et al., “Aromatase inhibitor anastrozole as a second-line hormonal treatment to a recurrent low-grade endometrial stromal sarcoma: a case report,” Medical Oncology, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 771–774, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  14. O. Reich and S. Regauer, “Hormonal therapy of endometrial stromal sarcoma,” Current Opinion in Oncology, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 347–352, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  15. F. Amant, A. Coosemans, M. Debiec-Rychter, D. Timmerman, and I. Vergote, “Clinical management of uterine sarcomas,” The Lancet Oncology, vol. 10, no. 12, pp. 1188–1198, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  16. K. A. Brown, N. U. Samarajeewa, and E. R. Simpson, “Endocrine-related cancers and the role of AMPK,” Molecular and Cellular Endocrinology, vol. 366, no. 2, pp. 170–179, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  17. G. Attard, J. Richards, and J. S. de Bono, “New strategies in metastatic prostate cancer: targeting the androgen receptor signaling pathway,” Clinical Cancer Research, vol. 17, no. 7, pp. 1649–1657, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  18. I. E. Smith and M. Dowsett, “Aromatase inhibitors in breast cancer,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 348, no. 24, pp. 2431–2442, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  19. J. M. Nabholtz, A. Buzdar, M. Pollak et al., “Anastrozole is superior to tamoxifen as first-line therapy for advanced breast cancer in postmenopausal women: results of a North American multicenter randomized trial,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 18, no. 22, pp. 3758–3767, 2000. View at: Google Scholar
  20. J. Bonneterre, B. Thürlimann, J. F. R. Robertson et al., “Anastrozole versus tamoxifen as first-line therapy for advanced breast cancer in 668 postmenopausal women: results of the tamoxifen or arimidex randomized group efficacy and tolerability study,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 18, no. 22, pp. 3748–3757, 2000. View at: Google Scholar
  21. H. Mouridsen, M. Gershanovich, Y. Sun et al., “Superior efficacy of letrozole versus tamoxifen as first-line therapy for postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer: results of a phase III study of the international letrozole breast cancer group,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 19, no. 10, pp. 2596–2606, 2001. View at: Google Scholar
  22. D. Mauri, N. Pavlidis, N. P. Polyzos, and J. P. A. Ioannidis, “Survival with aromatase inhibitors and inactivators versus standard hormonal therapy in advanced breast cancer: meta-analysis,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute, vol. 98, no. 18, pp. 1285–1291, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  23. R. Schiff, S. A. Massarweh, J. Shou et al., “Cross-talk between estrogen receptor and growth factor pathways as a molecular target for overcoming endocrine resistance,” Clinical Cancer Research, vol. 10, no. 1, part 2, pp. 331S–336S, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  24. S. R. D. Johnston, C. Arteaga, E. Winer, M. Dowsett, R. Kumar, and S. Come, “Clinical efforts to combine endocrine agents with targeted therapies against epidermal growth factor receptor/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 and mammalian target of rapamycin in breast cancer,” Clinical Cancer Research, vol. 12, no. 3, part 2, pp. 1061s–1068s, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  25. H. J. Burstein, “Novel agents and future directions for refractory breast cancer,” Seminars in Oncology, vol. 38, supplement 2, pp. S17–S24, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  26. J. Baselga, M. Campone, M. Piccart et al., “Everolimus in postmenopausal hormone-receptor-positive advanced breast cancer,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 366, no. 6, pp. 520–529, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  27. C. Thomas, F. Lamoureux, C. Crafter, B. R. Davies, E. Beraldi, and L. Fazli, “Synergistic targeting of PI3K/AKT pathway and androgen receptor axis significantly delays castration-resistant prostate cancer progression in vivo,” Molecular Cancer Therapeutics, vol. 12, no. 11, pp. 2342–2355, 2013. View at: Google Scholar
  28. E. A. Eisenhauer, P. Therasse, J. Bogaerts et al., “New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1),” European Journal of Cancer, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 228–247, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  29. H. Choi, C. Charnsangavej, S. C. Faria et al., “Correlation of computed tomography and positron emission tomography in patients with metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumor treated at a single institution with imatinib mesylate: proposal of new computed tomography response criteria,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 25, no. 13, pp. 1753–1759, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  30. P. Reichardt, “The treatment of uterine sarcomas,” Annals of Oncology, vol. 23, supplement 10, pp. x151–x157, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  31. J. K. Chan, N. M. Kawar, J. Y. Shin et al., “Endometrial stromal sarcoma: a population-based analysis,” The British Journal of Cancer, vol. 99, no. 8, pp. 1210–1215, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  32. B. M. Seddon and R. Davda, “Uterine sarcomas—recent progress and future challenges,” European Journal of Radiology, vol. 78, no. 1, pp. 30–40, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  33. R. L. Yamnik and M. K. Holz, “mTOR/S6K1 and MAPK/RSK signaling pathways coordinately regulate estrogen receptor α serine 167 phosphorylation,” FEBS Letters, vol. 584, no. 1, pp. 124–128, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  34. R. L. Yamnik, A. Digilova, D. C. Davis, Z. N. Brodt, C. J. Murphy, and M. K. Holz, “S6 kinase 1 regulates estrogen receptor α in control of breast cancer cell proliferation,” Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 284, no. 10, pp. 6361–6369, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  35. G. D. Demetri, S. P. Chawla, I. Ray-Coquard et al., “Results of an international randomized phase III trial of the mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor ridaforolimus versus placebo to control metastatic sarcomas in patients after benefit from prior chemotherapy,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 31, no. 19, pp. 2485–2492, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  36. S. P. Chawla, A. P. Staddon, L. H. Baker et al., “Phase II study of the mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor ridaforolimus in patients with advanced bone and soft tissue sarcomas,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 78–84, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  37. S. H. Tirumani, J. P. Jagannathan, K. O'Regan, K. W. Kim, K. M. Krajewski, and N. H. Ramaiya, “Molecular targeted therapies in non-GIST soft tissue sarcomas: what the radiologist needs to know,” Cancer Imaging, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 197–211, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright © 2014 J. Martin-Liberal 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

Related articles