The expression of stanniocalcin-1, estrogen receptor and progesterone receptor in endometrioid endometrial cancer
PDF
Cite
Share
Request
Clinical Investigation
P: 8-15
March 2023

The expression of stanniocalcin-1, estrogen receptor and progesterone receptor in endometrioid endometrial cancer

Turk J Obstet Gynecol 2023;20(1):8-15
1. İzmir Urla State Hospital, Medical Pathology Laboratory, İzmir, Turkey
2. Isparta City Hospital, Medical Pathology Laboratory, Isparta, Turkey
3. Süleyman Demirel University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology/Gynecological Oncology, Isparta, Turkey
4. Süleyman Demirel University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Radiation Oncology, Isparta, Turkey
5. Bartın State Hospital, Clinic of Internal Medicine/Department Endocrinology and Metabolic Disease, Bartın, Turkey
6. Süleyman Demirel University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Medical Pathology, Isparta, Turkey
No information available.
No information available
Received Date: 15.02.2023
Accepted Date: 19.02.2023
Publish Date: 10.03.2023
PDF
Cite
Share
Request

ABSTRACT

Objective:

To evaluate the expression of stanniocalcin-1 (STC-1) and to investigate the correlation of STC-1 with expression of estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR) and clinical parameters, histopathological findings and prognostic factors in endometrioid endometrial cancer (EEC).

Materials and Methods:

In this retrospective study, STC-1 (cytoplasmic), ER (nuclear), and PR (nuclear) stainings were applied to tissue microarray sections of 89 EEC, 27 endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia (EIN), and 21 normal endometrium (NE). Prognostic factors such as age, tumor size, depth of myometrial invasion, lymphovascular invasion, perineural invasion, and lymph node metastasis were compared with the expression of these markers.

Results:

ER showed significantly higher positivity in grade 1 EEC. PR expression was also higher in grade 1 EEC, but these findings were not statistically significant. Strong expression of STC-1 was observed in EIN and EECs compared with NE. STC-1 showed low staining in the NE, and high staining was also noted in the EIN foci adjacent to the NE. STC-1 expression was positively correlated with grade 1 EECs.

Conclusion:

STC-1 expression was positively correlated with low histologic grade in EECs. STC-1 can be used for distinguishing low-grade endometrioid tumors and high -grade endometrioid tumors in curretage specimens. Since STC-1 is related to well differentiated tumors, it can also be regarded as a good prognostic factor in EECs.

PRECIS: Stanniocalcin-1 (STC-1) expression was associated with well differantiated endometriod endometrial cancer. Decreased expression of STC-1 was observed in poor differentiated endometriod endometrial cancer.

Introduction

Endometrial cancer (EC) is mostly seen in peri-postmenopausal women. The incidence and mortality rates increase with age(1). Hormone receptor status has a prognostic role in EC that estrogen receptor (ER) or progesterone receptor (PR) positivity are good prognostic markers(2).

Endometrioid endometrial cancer (EEC) and serous/clear cell endometrial cancers (SEC), show significantly different clinicopathological features(2). Endometrioid type is mostly associated with overexposure to the estrogen. There are 2 forms of estrogen hormone, alpha and beta. The alpha form was associated with poor survival. Progesterone hormone is used to treat early-stage PR -positive ECs. The progesterone response is low in advanced and recurrent ECs. Progesterone response is an important prognostic indicator in ECs(3). SECs have a worse prognosis. They are unrelated to estrogen exposure(4).

Increasing the incidence of EC makes it important to forecast the likelihood of recurrence and prognosis after diagnosis to reduce mortality and morbidity. Studies have shown that tumor stage, histological grade, histopathological type, invasion depth, and lymphovascular space involvement status are crucial parameters in predicting recurrence(5,6). However, it is critical to search for more indicators in predicting prognosis and recurrence.

Stanniocalcin-1 (STC-1), is regarded as a prognostic marker, in predicting the grade and size of tumor and risk of metastasis(7). STC-1 is a glycoprotein hormone that has a role in cell proliferation, calcium metabolism, programmed cell death, and oxidative stress responses(8).

STC-1 was first detected in humans in 1995(9). It was determined that ovarian cancers showed higher STC-1 expression than other cancer types(10). High expression of STC-1 has been detected in hepatocellular carcinoma, thyroid cancer, colon cancer, and lung adenocarcinoma. Conversely, downregulation of STC-1 was shown in cervical cancer(11).

The expression of STC-1 in gynecological cancers has not yet been clarified. In our study, we evaluated the expression of ER, PR and STC-1 expression, which are important in ECs, and clinical, prognostic parameters, histopathological findings.

Materials and Methods

Results

The mean age was 56.6 in the study population. In 31 (34.8%) cases accompanying leiomyoma was observed. Forty-seven (52.8%) EECs were grade 1, 30 (33.7%) grade 2, 12 (13.5%) grade 3 EECs. Endocervical involvement was observed in 12 (13.5%) patients, and deep myometrial invasion was observed in 20 (22.5%) patients, and 3 (3.4%) patients had metastatic lymph nodes (Table 1). In 89 EEC patients, 19 (21.3%) EINs and 2 (1.05%) endometrial polyps were observed at the time of diagnosis. The invasion to the bladder was detected in 1 (1.1%) patient with grade 3 EEC.

Table 1

EIN and EECs showed increased ER expression compared to NE (p=0.044). High expression of STC-1 in EIN and EECs compared with NE was noted (p<0.001). Low staining was observed in the NE with STC-1 (Figure 1A), and staining was noted in EIN foci observed adjacent to the NE in Figure 1B, (Table 2). There was no significant difference between EIN and EEC expression of STC-1, ER, and PR (p=0.171, p=0.157 and, p=0.269).

Figure 1
Table 2

STC-1 expression was significantly high in grade 1 and grade 2 EEC compared to grade 3 EEC (p=0.021) (Table 3). ER was statistically highly positive in grade 1 EEC (p=0.017) (Table 4). Grade 1 EECs have much less LVI than grade 3 tumors (p=0.005). As expected, grade 1 EECs exhibited considerably less myometrial invasion than grade 3 EEC (p=0.006) (Table 4).

Table 3
Table 4

Patients with grade 2 EECs were statistically significantly older than the patients with grade 1 EEC (p=0.042). Tumor size was significantly higher in patients with grade 3 EEC than in grade 1 EC (p=0.034) (Table 4).

Table 4

There was a negative association between tumor grade (r=-0.390; p<0.001) and myometrial invasion, but a positive correlation between ER and PR (r=0.559; p<0.001) (r=-0.281; p=0.008).

Discussion

In this study, STC-1, ER, and PR stains were evaluated immunohistochemically in the samples taken from patients with EEC; clinical parameters, histopathological type, and prognostic factors were compared.

Morphological and molecular changes occur in endometrium with the different hormonal status, and physiology has been the target of extensive research to make the pathophysiology more understandable(17). In our study, the expression of STC-1, ER, and PR evaluation in NE. EINand EEC was compared with the TMA. STC-1 expression in EIN and EECs was higher than NE.

Secretory phase endometrium showed increased STC-1 expression in patients undergoing assisted reproductive techniques(18). Patients with unexplained infertility showed decreased endometrial STC-1 expression according to a paper. Low STC-1 expression in the secretory endometrium period in a woman with endometriosis, and in endometrial pathologies were reported. It is yet unclear how STC-1 expresses itself in diseased and normal settings(17). In our study, NE was taken as the control group, and additional disease information for the cases was not available. The low expression of STC-1 may also be due to additional diseases present in the cases or the presence of endometrial samples belonging to the similar phases.

EECs are typically observed in the peri-postmenopausal period(14). Similarly, the mean age of all EECs in our study was 56.6±9.1. Patiens who have grade 1 tumors were younger than the patients that have grade 2 tumors.

EIN is predicted as the precursor of EEC; ER, PR positivity is common in EIN and EECs(14). In our study, EIN in the different focuses accompanying EECs at the time of diagnosis was 21.3%. EIN and EECs showed significantly higher ER expression compared to the NE. However, PR expression was similar between the groups.

Prognostic factors for EC were reported as stage, tumor grade, histopathological type, myometrial invasion, age, and extrauterine spread in EC are among the criteria determined to predict prognosis(19). In our study, we compared immunohistochemical markers with the mentioned parameters.

Many ECs have been shown to express ER and PR(20). Possible mechanisms for developing endometrial carcinogenesis include loss of ER and PR expression, and LN involvement are significantly poor prognostic indicators in patients with EEC, and their relationship with prognosis and survival has been qualitatively demonstrated(21,22). Loss of ER and PR was correlated with more aggressive clinicopathological features(22). In our study, ER was statistically highly positive in grade 1. Although PR was higher in grade 1 EECs, it was not statistically significant. Metastatic lymph nodes were observed in 3 of 89 patients, as expected in EECs, and since the group distribution was not balanced, comparison with immunohistochemical marker expression was not satisfactory.

The expression of STC-1 can vary between different tissues and in a given tissue section(23). It is therefore possible that STC-1 functions differently among human tumors(24). STC-1 is thought to be a promising biomarkers with various biological mechanisms in tumor progression due to increased mRNA levels in peripheral blood in cancer patients(25). The expression of STC-1 and STC-2, evaluated in patients with laringeal squamous cell carcinoma, can be used for predicting recurrence and metastasis(24). Another study showed that STC-1 and STC2 increase vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) prolonging the lifespan of multiple cancer patients in targeted therapy against angiogenesis mediators such as VEGF(26).

In the TMA study of STC-1 in EEC patients, LVI, deep myometrial invasion, and large tumor size were all associated with loss of STC-1 expression. Higher epithelial expression was observed in grade 1 EECs than in grade 3 EECs. Nuclear staining was not observed. No relationship was found between disease-specific survival and expression, and the effect of STC on prognosis could not be proven. The loss of expression in ECs was shown to be associated with increased recurrence(8). Similarly in our study, STC-1 expression was significantly low in grade 3 tumors. Grade 1 EECs have much less LVI than grade 3 tumors. And no more relationship was found between other prognostic parameters and STC-1 expression.

In our study, cytoplasmic staining was observed in epithelial areas in tumor cells, and nuclear expression was not observed for STC-1. No specific staining was observed in stromal cells, and the staining in the epithelium with STC-1 was consistent with other studies(17,27), showing that the main target of STC-1 is the epithelium.

Studies evaluating the expression of ovarian serous carcinoma and STC have shown that expression correlates with tumor grade(28). In another study, it has been shown that STC plays a role in the aggressive course and metastasis by inducing cellular proliferation in tumors and reducing apoptosis(25). In our study, STC-1 expression was significantly low in grade 3 EEC patients.

The loss of expression in STC-1 was reported to be a poor prognostic factor in cervical cancer(11). In another study, it was observed that high expression and tumor size were inversely correlated in hepatocellular carcinoma of the liver(29).

It has been shown that hyf-1alpha can participate in the proliferation of ccRCCs by inducing the accumulation of STC-1, down-regulating calcium. Distant organ metastasis, tumor diameter, and STC-1 expression were positively correlated with ccRCC(30).

The explanation on the effect of STC-1 on tumor proliferation may that tumor cells may use STC-1 for their growth.

Conclusion

STC-1 expression was positively correlated with low histologic grade in EECs. STC-1 can be used for discriminating low-grade EECs and high-grade EECs in curretage specimens. Since STC-1 is related to well-differantiated tumors, it can also be regarded as a good prognostic factor in EECs.

Patients and Tissue Samples

In this retrospective study, tissue samples from 89 EECs, 27 EIN, and 21 normal endometrium (NE) diagnosed between 2011 and 2020 were used. The date of patient age, tumor size, myometrial invasion depth, lymphovascular invasion (LVI), perineural invasion, distant organ metastasis, and lymph node metastasis were obtained from the hospital records.

Since deep myometrial invasion ≥50%(12) and tumor diameter ≥2 cm were previously reported as poor prognostic markers(13), patients were divided into groups using these indicators. Histological grades of EEC, and hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) stained sections of the cases were revised by experienced in gynecologic pathology to verify the diagnosis and differentiate the area most respresentating the tumor.

The histopathological grade of EEC was determined according to the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics by considering the non-squamous solid areas of the tumor. Grade 1 tumors comprised solid areas 5% or less, grade 2 tumors comprised solid areas between 5 and 50%, and grade 3 tumors comprised more than 50% solid areas(14).

Areas with no necrosis or hemorrhage were considered representative. A manual tissue conditioner was used to manually embed at least two core biopsies into new paraffin blocks from specified tumor regions (Thermo-Labvision, Fermont CA, USA). Each core was 2 mm in diameter. Sections of 5 µm thickness were taken from TMA paraffin blocks. Four slides were cut from all TMA blocks and 1 was used for immunohistochemical staining, and 1 for H&E, to confirm that the correct areas were selected.

The study protocol was been approved by the Ethics Committee of Süleyman Demirel University with the decision numbered 72867572-050.01.04-47478.

Immunohistochemical Staining

ER, PR, and STC-1 markers were immunohistochemically applied to the prepared TMA slides.

STC-1

Anti-STC-1 (rabbit polyclonal antibody, ab229477; Abcam) antibody: Five micrometer tissue sections were deparaffinized for an hour, rinsed with xylene for fifteen minutes, and rehydrated in an alcohol series for twenty minutes after being fixed with 10% formalin at 22 degrees for two days. Sections were blocked for 15 min at 37 °C with 10% goat serum, then incubated with anti-STC-1 primary antibody for 2 h at 37 °C (1: 100), providing endogenous peroxidase inactivation and antigen retrieval. Following this, the sections were incubated for an additional hour at 22 degrees with the kit’s included secondary antibody rabbit immunoglobulin G conjugated to horseradish peroxidase. No further rarefaction was necessary. After 15 min at 37 °C in horseradish enzyme-labeled chain avidin solution, the sections were washed. Later, the proteins were imaged using 3.3’-diaminobenzidine.

Pictures were taken under a microscope with x200 and x400 objectives. When a disagreement occurred between the observers, the final score was decided after a third observer was evaluated. The rate of positively stained cells and the staining intensity -measured as the number of positively stained cells per 100 cells- was used to calculate the IHC score. The rate of staining positive was calculated as follows: The percentage of cytoplasmic staining in the epithelium was evaluated as score 0: 0, score 1: 1-10%, score 2: 11-50%, score 3: 50-75%, score 4: 76% and above. Additionally, staining intensity was manually evaluated in the manner described below: Score 0: Negative/unstained, score 1: Yellow, score 2: Brown, and score 3: Dark brown.

It was calculated in the final quantification by multiplying two scores. The overall score was described as 0 being negative, 1-4 being weak, 5-8 being positive, and 9-12 being strong. The staining intensity and percentage were used to determine the final score. Low STC-1 expression was defined as an IHC value of 5 and below, and high STC-1 expression as a score more than 5 (Figure 1A-D)(15).

Figure 1

ER

ER alpha clone EP1 (rabbit monoclonal antibody, code GA084, Dako Omnis) antibody was ready to use and nuclear staining was considered positive. The evaluation was performed with respect to the method defined by Carcangiu et al.(16). The evaluation was made according to the percentage of stained cells and the strength of the nuclear stain. The percentage of stained nuclei-positive cells was rated according to the following scale: Score 0: no staining/negative, score 1: 1-25%, score 2: 26-75%, and score 3: More than 76% were considered positive. This is how staining intensity was graded: Score 0: No staining, score 1: Poor; score 2: Strong and score 3: Compelling. The IHC score was calculated by adding both parameters. The IHC score was used to categorize tumors into three groups. Category 1: Corresponded to 2 points, Category 2: 3 or 4 points, and Category 3: 5 or 6 points(16). Category 1 tumors were considered negative, Category 2 tumors were considered moderately positive, and Category 3 tumors were considered highly positive (Figure 1E-H).

Figure 1

PR

PR, clone PgR 1.294 (mouse monoclonal antibody, code GA090, Dako Omnis) antibody, ready to use, nuclear staining was considered positive. The evaluation was performed with respect to the method defined by Carcangiu et al.(16). The evaluations was made according to the percentage of stained cells and the strength of the nuclear stain. The percentage of stained nuclei-positive cells was rated according to the following scale: Score 0: No staining/negative, score 1: 1-25%, score 2: 26-75%, and score 3: More than 76% were considered positive. This is how staining intensity was graded: score 0: No staining, score 1: Poor; score 2: Strong and score 3: Compelling. The IHC score was calculated by adding both parameters. The IHC score was used to categorize tumors into three groups. Category 1: Corresponded to 2 points, Category 2: 3 or 4 points, and Category 3: 5 or 6 points(16). Category 1 tumors were considered negative, Category 2 tumors were considered moderately positive, and Category 3 tumors were considered highly positive (Figure 1I-L).

Figure 1

As a control, the expression of STC-1, ER, and PR in NEs and cases with EIN and in malignant cases were compared.

Statistical Analysis

The difference between age, gender, STC-1, ER, and PR scores of patients with EEC were compared with the chi-square test. STC-1, ER, PR scores, and tumor grade of patients with EEC were analyzed by the Spearman correlation test. SPSS 21.0 (IBM, Chicago, IL, USA) software was used for statistical analysis, and p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Study Limitations

TMA is a common method used to predict prognosis in many cancers. In our study, tumor samples were taken from 2 different foci from each tumor and statistical analysis were performed by taking the average of the expressions. However, due to tumor heterogeneity, it may not represent the entire tumor.

References

1
Aydin HA, Toptas T, Bozkurt S, Aydin A, Erdogan G, Pestereli E, et al. Stanniocalcin-2 may be a potentially valuable prognostic marker in endometrial cancer: a preliminary study. Pathol Oncol Res 2019;25:751-7.
2
Qu W, Zhao Y, Wang X, Qi Y, Zhou C, Hua Y, et al. Culture characters, genetic background, estrogen/progesterone receptor expression, and tumorigenic activities of frequently used sixteen endometrial cancer cell lines. Clin Chim Acta 2019;489:225-32.
3
Shabani N, Kuhn C, Kunze S, Schulze S, Mayr D, Dian D, 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 2007;43:2434-44.
4
Fuzi AAM, Omar SZ, Mohamed Z, Adenan NAM, Mokhtar NM. High throughput silencing identifies novel genes in endometrioid endometrial cancer. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol 2018;57:217-26.
5
Jia M, Jiang P, Huang Z, Hu J, Deng Y, Hu Z. The combined ratio of estrogen, progesterone, Ki‐67, and P53 to predict the recurrence of endometrial cancer. J Surg Oncol 2020;122:1808-14.
6
Bendifallah S, Ouldamer L, Lavoue V, Canlorbe G, Raimond E, Coutant C, et al. Patterns of recurrence and outcomes in surgically treated women with endometrial cancer according to ESMO-ESGO-ESTRO Consensus Conference risk groups: Results from the FRANCOGYN study Group. Gynecol Oncol 2017;144:107-12.
7
Zhao F, Yang G, Feng M, Cao Z, Liu Y, Qiu J, et al. Expression, function and clinical application of stanniocalcin‐1 in cancer. J Cell Mol Med 2020;24:7686-96.
8
Khatun M, Urpilainen E, Ahtikoski A, Arffman RK, Pasanen A, Puistola U, et al. Low Expression of Stanniocalcin 1 (STC-1) Protein Is Associated With Poor Clinicopathologic Features of Endometrial Cancer. Pathol Oncol Res 2021;27:1609936.
9
Chang AC-M, Janosi J, Hulsbeek M, de Jong D, Jeffrey KJ, Noble JR, et al. A novel human cDNA highly homologous to the fish hormone stanniocalcin. Mol Cell Endocrinol 1995;112:241-7.
10
Zhang F, Ma T, Cui P, Tamadon A, He S, Huo C, et al. Diversity of the gut microbiota in dihydrotestosterone-induced PCOS rats and the pharmacologic effects of diane-35, probiotics, and berberine. Front Microbiol 2019;10:175.
11
Pan X, Jiang B, Liu J, Ding J, Li Y, Sun R, et al. STC1 promotes cell apoptosis via NF-κB phospho-P65 Ser536 in cervical cancer cells. Oncotarget 2017;8:46249-61.
12
Mai KT, Perkins DG, Yazdi HM, Thomas J. Endometrioid carcinoma of the endometrium with an invasive component of minimal deviation carcinoma. Hum Pathol 2002;33:856-8.
13
Ali A, Black D, Soslow RA. Difficulties in assessing the depth of myometrial invasion in endometrial carcinoma. Int J Gynecol Pathol 2007;26:115-23.
14
Lax SF. Pathology of endometrial carcinoma. Molecular Genetics of Endometrial Carcinoma: Springer; 2017. p. 75-96.
15
Luo W, Chen D, Wang H, Hu J. Stanniocalcin 1 is a prognostic biomarker in glioma. Oncol Lett 2020;20:2248-56.
16
Carcangiu ML, Chambers JT, Voynick IM, Pirro M, Schwartz PE. Immunohistochemical evaluation of estrogen and progesterone receptor content in 183 patients with endometrial carcinoma. Part I: Clinical and histologic correlations. Am J Clin Pathol 1990;94:247-54.
17
Aghajanova L, Altmäe S, Kasvandik S, Salumets A, Stavreus-Evers A, Giudice LC. Stanniocalcin-1 expression in normal human endometrium and dysregulation in endometriosis. Fertil Steril 2016;106:681-91 e1.
18
Allegra A, Marino A, Coffaro F, Lama A, Rizza G, Scaglione P, et al. Is there a uniform basal endometrial gene expression profile during the implantation window in women who became pregnant in a subsequent ICSI cycle? Hum Reprod 2009;24:2549-57.
19
Yao M, JS SDB. Novak’s gynecology. Philadelphia: Willams and Wilkins; 2007;1348-80.
20
Gülseren V, Kocaer M, Özdemir İA, Çakır İ, Sancı M, Güngördük K. Do estrogen, progesterone, P53 and Ki67 receptor ratios determined from curettage materials in endometrioid-type endometrial carcinoma predict lymph node metastasis? Curr Probl Cancer 2020;44:100498.
21
Trovik J, Wik E, Werner HM, Krakstad C, Helland H, Vandenput I, et al. Hormone receptor loss in endometrial carcinoma curettage predicts lymph node metastasis and poor outcome in prospective multicentre trial. Eur J Cancer 2013;49:3431-41.
22
Ballester M, Canlorbe G, Cortez A, Gonin J, Laas E, Bendifallah S, et al. Histological and immunohistochemical profiles predict lymph node status in women with low-intermediate risk endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2013;130:457-62.
23
Yokobori T, Mimori K, Ishii H, Iwatsuki M, Tanaka F, Kamohara Y, et al. Clinical significance of stanniocalcin 2 as a prognostic marker in gastric cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2010;17:2601-7.
24
Zhou H, Li Y-Y, Zhang W-Q, Lin D, Zhang W-M, Dong W-D. Expression of stanniocalcin-1 and stanniocalcin-2 in laryngeal squamous cell carcinoma and correlations with clinical and pathological parameters. PLoS One 2014;9:e95466.
25
Arigami T, Uenosono Y, Ishigami S, Hagihara T, Haraguchi N, Matsushita D, et al. Expression of stanniocalcin 1 as a potential biomarker of gastric cancer. Oncology 2012;83:158-64.
26
Loges S, Roncal C, Carmeliet P. Development of targeted angiogenic medicine. J Thromb Haemost 2009;7:21-33.
27
Block GJ, Ohkouchi S, Fung F, Frenkel J, Gregory C, Pochampally R, et al. Multipotent stromal cells are activated to reduce apoptosis in part by upregulation and secretion of stanniocalcin‐1. Stem Cells 2009;27:670-81.
28
Liu G, Yang G, Chang B, Mercado-Uribe I, Huang M, Zheng J, et al. Stanniocalcin 1 and ovarian tumorigenesis. J Natl Cancer Inst 2010;102:812-27.
29
Yeung BH, Shek FH, Lee NP, Wong CK. Stanniocalcin-1 reduces tumor size in human hepatocellular carcinoma. PLoS One 2015;10:e0139977.
30
Ma X, Gu L, Li H, Gao Y, Li X, Shen D, et al. Hypoxia-induced overexpression of stanniocalcin-1 is associated with the metastasis of early stage clear cell renal cell carcinoma. J Transl Med 2015;13:1-14.