Yingying Peng1†
Guanglei Zhong1†
Minqi Zhou2Yuwei Yao1Kejun Dong1Zheng Yang2Lanfen An3Jun Zhang1Jiarui Zhang1Shuo Zhang1Qianqian Tang1*Hongbo Wang1,4*- 1Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China
- 2Cancer Center, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China
- 3Department of Plastic Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China
- 4Clinical Research Center of Cancer Immunotherapy, Wuhan, China
The development of endometrial cancer is a gradual malignant transformation process driven by multiple factors, and the immune microenvironment is closely related to clinical outcomes and immunotherapy responses. Under physiological conditions, the immune microenvironment of the normal endometrium undergoes periodic reshaping under the regulation of estrogen and progesterone, maintaining the balance between immune defense and reproductive capacity. However, continuous exposure to risk factors, such as non-antagonistic estrogen, may trigger endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia. During this period, the immune microenvironment becomes dysregulated, supporting malignant progression. For example, estrogen-stimulated interactions between endothelial cells and macrophages, elevated neutrophil/lymphocyte ratios, and the accumulation of regulatory T cells all combine to cause dysregulation of immune microenvironment. The abnormal immune microenvironment that occurs in the precancerous lesion stage interacts with systemic and genetic carcinogenic factors, ultimately shaping the unique immune microenvironment of each molecular subtype of endometrial cancer. POLE-mutated and MSI-H subtype endometrial cancer are immune-infiltrated tumors, whereas the copy-number high subtype is immune-suppressive tumor and the copy-number low subtype is immune-desert tumor. However, still little is known about the immune dysregulation that occurs during the precancerous stage and its impact on subsequent malignant progression. This review systematically describes the changes in the immune microenvironment during the process from normal endometrium to endometrial cancer, emphasizing that endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia is a key stage of immune imbalance, thus paving the way for early immune intervention and precise immunotherapy.
1 Introduction
Uterine corpus cancer is one of the most common gynecological malignancies, accounting for 4.6% of all new female cancer cases worldwide in 2022 (1). Endometrial cancer (EC) constitutes over 83% of reported uterine corpus cancers (2). In the United States, approximately 57% of EC are attributed to overweight and obesity, and endometrioid EC is the predominant histological subtype (3–5). Obesity not only promotes the synthesis of estrogen but also increases its bioavailability, thereby promoting the hyperplasia of endometrial epithelium and increasing the risk of endometrial cancer (3, 5).
In 1983, EC was classified into two histological subtypes by Bokhman (6). Type I EC accounts for approximately 80% to 90%, among which about 80% are endometrioid EC that is related to the excessive proliferation of endometrial cells stimulated by estrogen (7). Type II EC is not dependent on estrogen and primarily manifests as serous or clear-cell histological subtypes (2).
Type I EC begins with continuous endometrial hyperplasia, with the histologically identifiable precancerous lesion defined as endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia (EIN), which is typified by gland/stroma ratio >1, glandular structural disorder, and epithelial cytological changes (8, 9). Clinical studies have shown that EIN diagnosis based on biopsy is associated with a 45-fold increased risk of progressing to EC (10, 11). Therefore, EIN represents a critical step in the developmental process of EC.
Tumorigenesis is a complex biological process that involves a wide range of interactions between tumor cells and the tumor microenvironment (TME). The TME consists of tumor cells, abundant immune cells, cancer-associated fibroblasts, endothelial cells, pericytes, and extracellular matrix components secreted by these cells (12). In normal tissues, the microenvironment inhibits tumor growth, while the TME actively enhances tumor cell proliferation and invasion at the primary site. The tumor immune microenvironment (TIME), as a crucial participant of the TME, can not only exert anti-tumor effects but also produce tumor-promoting effects (13). From immune surveillance to immune evasion, TIME is closely related to tumor progression. During the evolution from normal endometrium to EIN and then to EC, TIME has undergone significant changes, providing potential targets for early intervention (14).
This review systematically summarizes the key changes in the immune microenvironment during the development of EC. We described the molecular factors that drive TIME changes in the continuous process from normal endometrium to EIN to endometrial cancer, investigated their contributions to tumorigenesis, and evaluated their clinical significance.
2 Immune microenvironment of normal endometrium
Normal endometrium is a unique mucosal immune system (Figure 1). It must not only defend against pathogen invasion and clear tissue debris during menstruation, but also tolerate semi-allogeneic embryos and maintain pregnancy (15). Normal endometrium contains various immune cells, some being tissue-resident cells and others migrating from peripheral blood (16).
Figure 1. Cyclic remodeling of the immune microenvironment in the normal endometrium driven by estrogen and progesterone. By Figdraw.
Uterine natural killer (uNK) cells are the dominant endometrial lymphocytes, with relatively low numbers during the proliferative phase, peaking during the secretory phase (especially late secretory phase), accounting for 70% of lymphocytes in early pregnancy, and decreasing from mid-pregnancy (17–20). uNK cells are equipped with tissue-resident receptors and can be replenished from circulation (21). The classification of uNK cells into endometrial (eNK) and decidual (dNK) subtypes depends on their anatomical location and the host’s pregnancy status (17, 22). Compared with circulating and NK cells residing in other tissues, uNK cells have lower cytotoxic activity (23). They promote uterine spiral artery remodeling through direct interaction with fetal trophoblast cells, secreting proteolytic matrix metalloproteinases (MMP) to provide nutrition for embryonic development (24).
Macrophages are critical to innate immunity and are the main cells for endometrial angiogenesis, wound healing and anti-inflammatory response, which account for 1-2% and 3-5% of the total number of endometrial cells in the proliferative and secretory phases, respectively (25–27). During the secretory phase, macrophages gather around the endometrium and respond rapidly at the onset of menstruation, initiating the repair process (28). Macrophages maintain the homeostasis of the normal endometrium by interacting with other immune cells. For example, during late secretory and early menstrual phases, IFN-γ released by uNK cells promotes M1 polarization of macrophages and enhances their ability to remove tissue debris (29). During pregnancy, macrophages rise to 20-30% of decidual immune cells, exhibiting immunosuppressive properties that favor pregnancy maintenance (30–32).
The decline of T lymphocytes was evident in the endometrium compared with the peripheral blood, accounting for only 1-2% of immune cells, but high expression of HLA-DR and CD69 confirms that these T cells are highly activated (33–35). T cell subsets observed in the endometrium include helper T cells (Th), cytotoxic T cells, regulatory T cells (Tregs), etc., mainly distributed in basal lymphatics, stroma, or epithelium (36). Among them, the proportion of CD8+ T cells is approximately twice that of CD4+ T cells, and the cytotoxic activity of CD8+ T cells is stronger during the proliferative phase and weaker during the secretory phase (37). Additionally, The number of Tregs reaches its peak after embryo implantation to maintain an anti-inflammatory environment and ensures maternal-fetal tolerance (38, 39).
B lymphocytes do not exceed 5% of total lymphocytes in normal endometrium, distributed in endometrial stroma and the central region of lymphoid aggregates (LAs) (40, 41). Current studies on the function of B cells in normal endometrium are limited.
Dendritic cells (DCs) are present in the endometrium at a lower density than NK cells and macrophages, which are mainly immature DCs and are relatively evenly distributed in the functional layer and basal layer of the endometrium (42). During secretory and menstrual phases, some immature DCs are hormonally regulated to migrate to the uterus, preparing for clearing shed cell debris (43, 44). During pregnancy, the presentation of trophoblast-derived fetal antigens by decidual DCs constitutes a fundamental mechanism for maternal immune tolerance (45, 46).
Mast cells (MCs) are abundant in the myometrium but rare in the endometrium, mostly distributed in the basal layer (47). MC phenotypes are related to their location in uterine tissue layers, with tryptase+/chymase+ subset MCs and tryptase-/chymase+ MCs existing in the myometrium and endometrial basal layer, while tryptase+/chymase- MCs exist in the endometrial functional layer (48). The number of MCs in the endometrium shows no significant fluctuation during the menstrual cycle, possibly related to the long lifespan of tissue-resident MCs (49).
Besides immune cells, the endometrial immune system also includes stromal cells and endometrial epithelial cells that mediate antiviral immunity through TLR3 (50). In addition, TLR4 is vital for the innate immune response of endometrial epithelial cells and stromal cells to lipopolysaccharides (51). Moreover, endometrial epithelial cells can express MHC-II, directly process antigens and present them to professional antigen-presenting cells, promoting immune responses (52, 53).
In the endometrial basal layer, there are LAs organized around a core of CD19+ B cells, with T cells and macrophages in the periphery (54). LA size is linked to the menstrual cycle. During the secretory phase, LAs contain 3000–4000 cells, larger than the 300–400 cells during the proliferative phase, more likely derived from immune cells recruited from circulation rather than in situ proliferation (55, 56). LAs are similar to tertiary lymphoid structure (TLS), potentially playing an immune protective role during menstruation and disappearing after menopause (41, 55).
With hormonal level changes during the menstrual cycle, the endometrial immune microenvironment is regulated and undergoes cyclical changes (57–59). During the proliferative phase, the level of estrogen gradually increases and reaches its peak before ovulation (60). A variety of immune cells, including B cells, CD4+ T cells, CD8+ T cells, NK cells and DCs, all express estrogen receptors (61). Estrogen receptor α mediates the inhibition of NF-κB pathway, thus high levels of estrogen can promote anti-inflammatory response (62). In addition, estrogen signaling affects the development of innate immune cells, such as driving DCs’ differentiation to enhance local immune surveillance function (63–65). During the secretory phase, the ruptured follicle gradually transforms into the corpus luteum and secretes progesterone to prepare for embryo implantation (66, 67). Progesterone suppresses IFN-γ by binding to progesterone receptors, thereby reducing CD4+ T cell activity (68). Simultaneously, it induces IL-4 production while simultaneously suppressing proliferation in T cells (69). Consequently, the immune reactivity of the endometrium is diminished, further preparing the uterine lining for embryo implantation.
In summary, the immune microenvironment of the normal endometrium undergoes cyclical changes under the influence of estrogen and progesterone, maintaining a delicate state of equilibrium. However, when faced with certain pathological factors, for example, continuous estrogen stimulation, such immune homeostasis is disrupted, thereby creating a breeding ground for precancerous lesions.
3 Immune microenvironment remodeling in EIN
Endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia is the precancerous lesion of type I EC, which is caused by continuous estrogen stimulation, and over 90% of endometrioid ECs are believed to develop from EIN (70). Compared to normal endometrial hyperplasia, EIN is defined as increased gland/stroma ratio, irregular arrangement of cells on the basement membrane, proliferating glands with nuclear atypia (prominent nucleoli and open or vesicular chromatin) (71, 72). EIN carries an extremely high risk of concomitant EC or malignant progression (73, 74). As a critical transition point between precancerous lesions and malignant progression, EIN is an ideal stage for studying early immune changes in Type I EC (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Immune microenvironment dysregulation during the progression of endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia. By Figdraw.
During the transition from normal endometrium to EIN, the immune environment undergoes changes, manifested by systemic inflammatory responses and local immune microenvironment alterations.
Peripheral blood inflammatory markers were compared among EC patients, EIN patients, patients with non-atypical endometrial hyperplasia, and normal controls in a retrospective cross-sectional study (75). EIN patients showed higher neutrophil counts than the non-atypical hyperplasia group and control group, lower lymphocyte counts than the control group, and higher neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio (NLR) than all other groups (75). Elevated NLR before treatment predicts poor prognosis in EC patients (76). This study suggests that significant systemic inflammatory responses have already emerged during the EIN phase.
Flow cytometry analysis of endometrial immune cell composition revealed that patients with simple hyperplasia (SEH) had higher total immune cell proportions than proliferative endometrium, while patients with complex hyperplasia (CEH) had lower total immune cell proportions than SEH patients (77). Compared to proliferative endometrium, SEH and CEH patients showed increased effector CD4+ T cell proportions, with SEH patients having elevated neutrophil proportions but reduced NK and NKT cell proportions, and CEH patients showing higher macrophage proportions than SEH patients and proliferative endometrium but lower cytotoxic CD8+ T cell proportions than proliferative endometrium (77). Complex atypical hyperplasia shows an increased Tregs density and a decreased cytotoxic T cells density compared to normal endometrium (78). Moreover, most granzyme B+ cytotoxic NK/T cells within endometrial complex atypical hyperplasia are CD8+ T cells, whereas 80% of cytotoxic NK/T cells in normal endometrium are NK cells (78). In patients with endometrial hyperplasia, continuous estrogen stimulation activates endothelial cells through the SHP2-RIPK1Y380-AP1 signaling axis, with macrophages further amplifying inflammation, forming a positive feedback loop of endothelial cell-macrophage interaction communication, thereby maintaining endometrial sterile inflammatory state and causing disease progression (79). In summary, proportional and functional immune alterations are linked to EIN progression.
The changes in the immune microenvironment of EIN may be partly attributed to the driving factors for the transformation of normal endometrium to EIN. PTEN loss and KRAS mutations, which typically emerge at the EIN stage, remodel intercellular crosstalk and reprogram immune-cell recruitment and function through rewired downstream signaling (70, 80, 81). Estrogen exerts potent immunomodulatory effects, and chronic unopposed estrogen exposure reshapes the endometrial immune microenvironment (58, 82). Systemic chronic inflammatory state and insulin resistance caused by obesity may also directly or indirectly affect local immune status in the endometrium (83).
In short, EIN is more than an epithelial premalignancy; it is accompanied by a profound immune dysregulation that may already prime the local microenvironment for progression to cancer.
4 Immune microenvironment of EC
The TIME of EC has significant heterogeneity, including immune cells that exert “anti-tumor” functions and perform immune surveillance, as well as immune cells that exert “pro-tumor” functions and perform immune evasion.
4.1 Immune cell infiltration in EC
During the development of endometrial hyperplasia into EC, dramatic changes occur in the local immune microenvironment (Table 1). Compared to endometrial hyperplasia samples, EC samples show increased proportions of M1-like macrophages (1.19%), NK cells (2.13%), CD8+ T cells (1.27%), Tregs (2.17%), DCs (2.87%), neutrophils (11.7%), while immune checkpoint-related genes (CTLA4, HAVCR2/TIM3, IFNG) expression in EC tends to increase (14, 84, 95, 96).
Table 1. Alterations in composition and function of immune cells during progression from normal endometrium to endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia to endometrial cancer.
In EC, abundant CD8+ T cells correlate with improved outcomes, and POLE-mut and MSI-H subtypes are also considered more responsive to immunotherapy due to their higher T-lymphocyte infiltration (97–99). However, immunosuppressive cytokines secreted by TME in EC inhibit CD8+ T cytotoxic cell killing effects, reducing their granzyme A (GZA), granzyme B (GZB), and perforin expression (87). CD4+ T lymphocytes include Th and Tregs. Compared to normal endometrium, EC has higher proportions of Tregs, exerting anti-tumor immune suppression (14, 100, 101).
Macrophages exhibit high plasticity in the TME, with polarization being a continuous dynamic process (102). M1-like macrophages usually perform antitumor functions, while M2-like macrophages display anti-inflammatory and tumor-promoting characteristics (103). In EC, tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) are predominantly M2-like polarized (86).
B lymphocytes also show heterogeneity in TME, with different B cell subtypes exerting pro-tumor or anti-tumor effects, such as regulatory B cells (Bregs) (which may not be a separate lineage) exerting immunosuppressive activity (104). Chemokines drive B cell recruitment into the TME, where B cells further localize to TLS to interact with T cells and antigen-presenting cells (APCs) (105). In EC, higher levels of initial B-cell infiltration correlate with longer relapse-free survival (RFS), and TLS absence independently predicts tumor progression, and higher CD20+ B cell infiltration correlates with improved patient prognosis (88–90). TLS is defined as LAs that can secrete chemokines such as CXCL13, have clear T-cell and B-cell zones, contain high endothelial venules, and the T-cell zone contains mature DCs, while the B-cell zone has germinal centers (106). TLS is found in approximately 19% of high-risk EC patients, with L1CAM as a TLS marker most commonly found in POLEmut and MSI-H subtype patients (94, 107).
The NK cell proportion in EC is lower than that in normal endometrium, while a higher proportion of NK cells is significantly linked to longer overall survival (OS) (85). NK cells comprise two subtypes: CD56brightCD16lo and CD56dimCD16hi, with the former exhibiting immunoregulatory capabilities and cytokine secretion, while the latter primarily kills target cells by secreting perforin and granzyme (108). The cytotoxic effects of CD56dimCD16hi NK cells are impaired in EC, which also expresses higher levels of NR4A1 to mediate T cell dysfunction (109, 110). This indicates that NK cell function undergoes significant alterations in endometrial cancer.
Although DCs are more abundant in EC than in normal endometrium, the majority of DCs present in the tumor stroma and margins are immature DCs, which makes tumor antigen presentation ineffective and induces tumor tolerance (91).
In summary, during the progression from normal endometrium to EC, the composition and function of key immune cells undergo dramatic changes, such as impaired cytotoxic function of CD8+ T cells, M2-like polarization of macrophages, NK cell-mediated T cell dysfunction, and ineffective tumor antigen presentation by immature DCs. These changes jointly contributed to the formation of the immunosuppressive microenvironment.
4.2 Expression of immune checkpoints
Given the importance of immune checkpoints in modulating immune responses, tumor cells frequently exploit them to evade attack from immune cells (111). Compared with normal endometrial epithelial cell, both classical MHC class I (HLA-A, HLA-B, HLA-C) and class II molecules are downregulated in tumor cells to promote immune evasion, while nonclassical MHC class I molecules (HLA-E, HLA-F, HLA-G) are upregulated to promote immune tolerance (92, 112). In EC, classical MHC class I molecules are downregulated through genetic alterations, epigenetic silencing, or dysregulation of MHC-I transcriptional activator NLRC5 (113, 114). For nonclassical MHC class I molecules, HLA-G is upregulated in EC compared with normal endometrium, which can inhibit the cytotoxicity of NK cells, and low expression of HLA-E predicts improved survival of EC patients (115).
Additionally, approximately 70–80% of EC cells express PD-L1, while 40–70% express PD-L2, resulting in suppressed T-cell activation and function (93). The expression of IDO is more widespread than that of PD-L1 and correlated with reduced infiltration of CD8+ T cells and poor prognosis (116). Additionally, the expression of immune checkpoints on immune cells is also dysregulated. For instance, LAG-3 is more highly expressed in EC with high CD8+ T cell infiltration and it can cooperate with CTLA-4 on Tregs to enhance their immunosuppressive function (117, 118).
4.3 Molecular subtypes and TIME characteristics
Based on genomic signatures, The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) categorized EC into four major molecular subtypes, each strongly correlated with obvious TIME features and clinical outcomes (119) (Figure 3):
Figure 3. Immunological heterogeneity and therapeutic implications of molecular subtypes in endometrial cancer. By Figdraw.
POLEmut EC is recognized by pathological mutations in the exonuclease domain of the POLE gene (encoding the catalytic subunit of DNA polymerase ϵ), which impair mismatch repair function, driving genomic instability and tumorigenesis (120, 121). POLE mutations may even be detected in precancerous lesions (120, 122). The extensive infiltration of T lymphocytes in POLEmut EC enhances its immunogenicity, making such patients susceptible to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and generally have a good prognosis (123–125).
Microsatellite Instability-High (MSI-H) EC results from defective DNA mismatch repair, causing microsatellite replication errors, usually accompanied by Microsatellite Instability-High (MMR) protein (MSH2/MSH6/MLH1/PMS2) loss (126). Similar to the POLEmut subtype, MSI-H EC exhibits high tumor mutational burden (TMB), with greater immunogenicity and higher PD-L1 levels compared to other subtypes (127–132). Consequently, it typically responds well to immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy. However, a subset of MSI-H EC patients fail to respond to ICI therapy, which may be due to extremely low CD8+ T cell infiltration, impaired terminal T-cell differentiation, a deficiency in mature TLS and DCs, and downregulation of HLA class I in the local immune microenvironment of these patients (133).
Copy-Number High (CNH) EC is defined by pathogenic TP53 mutations, often accompanied by extensive copy number variations (119). CNH EC typically exhibits lower TMB (134). It exhibits high malignancy, frequently presenting as Type II EC or high-grade Type I EC, and is linked to the most unfavorable clinical outcomes (135–139). CD8+ T cells predominantly infiltrate the tumor parenchyma of CNH EC, while their infiltration levels in the tumor stroma are relatively low (132). Conversely, Tregs, M2-like macrophages, PD-L1+CD68+ macrophages, and CD8+PD-1+ T cells exhibit higher proportions, indicating a strongly immunosuppressive microenvironment (132).
Copy-Number Low (CNL) EC lacks molecular characteristics defined by the other three subtypes (140). Its prognosis is intermediate, between TMB-H types (POLEmut and MSI-H) and CNH type (141, 142). CNL EC typically exhibits low intratumoral immune cell infiltration, classified as the “immune desert” type (132, 143, 144).
Among different molecular subtypes of EC patients, TIME composition and functional status exhibit significant differences, including low immune infiltration in CNL EC, relatively active immune microenvironment in CNH EC, while POLEmut and MSI-H EC demonstrate higher CD8+ T cell infiltration levels. Notably, TLSs are organized immune structures composed of diverse immune cells and stromal cells, for instance, lymphocytes, follicular dendritic cells (FDCs), macrophages, and endothelial cells, which play a unique role in the TIME of EC (145, 146). Higher TLS density not only correlates with a better prognosis but also serves as a predictor of ICI treatment responsiveness (88, 147, 148). It is notable that the spatial location of TLS appears to be crucial for its prognostic significance and potential prediction of therapeutic response. Distal TLS (dTLS) significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) across multiple cohorts, and derived greater clinical benefit from ICIs in CNH EC (149).
5 Molecular mechanisms underlying immune microenvironment changes
The dynamic evolution of the TIME in EC is jointly driven by the interaction between intrinsic molecular alterations in tumor cells and systemic factors.
Somatic gene mutations are key drivers of immune microenvironment changes. Somatic mutations in the POLE exonuclease correction domain (EDM) were detected in approximately 7%–12% of EC, with 90% of these being pathogenic mutations (119, 150, 151). Mutations at codons 286, 411, 297, 456, and 459 in POLE-EDM are defined as its hotspot mutations, often associated with higher TMB (152, 153). POLE mutations generate more new antigenic epitopes, leading to increased infiltration of CD8+ T cell and enhancement of T cell cytotoxicity and effector molecules such as T-bet, IFN-γ, PRF, and GZB, thereby resulting in higher immunogenicity (154, 155). MMR deficiency accounts for approximately 25%-30% in EC, meaning that it fails to correct insertions or deletions of repeat units during DNA replication through the crucial MMR proteins (156, 157). In MMR-deficient cells, microsatellites are susceptible to replication errors, causing MSI (126, 158). Similar to POLE mutations, MMR deficiency produces high TMB, leading to increased tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs), although not all patients exhibit this response (133, 159, 160). TP53 is a critical tumor suppressor gene whose encoded protein monitors DNA integrity, initiates cellular responses to DNA damage and triggering apoptosis of abnormal cells (161, 162). Approximately 25%-28% of EC carries TP53 mutations, including one-third of POLEmut EC and 8% of MSI-H EC (119, 163). TP53 mutations are a marker of aggressive disease and poor prognosis (139). TP53-mutated tumor cells induce immune suppression by secreting CSF-1/IL-10/TGF-β to induce M2-like polarization of macrophages, combined with the recruitment of Tregs (162). PTEN gene inactivation is highly prevalent in Type I EC, frequently occurring at the EIN stage (164–167). PTEN loss results in PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway overactivation and increased cell proliferation (168, 169). PTEN-lost tumors usually show higher densities of Tregs, MDSCs, and M2-like macrophages, inducing an immunosuppressive phenotype (170, 171). KRAS mutations also occur at the EIN stage (172, 173). KRAS gene mutations not only affect the RAF-MEK-ERK pathway, MAPK/ERK pathway, PI3K-AKT-mTOR pathway, and RAL-GEF pathway, thereby promoting cell survival, proliferation, and cytokine secretion, but also facilitate immune evasion by enhancing PD-L1 expression (174, 175).
Besides the direct consequences of gene mutations, abnormal activation or inhibition of key signaling pathways also contribute significantly to immune microenvironment remodeling. The PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway is frequently activated in EC (commonly due to PTEN loss or PI3KCA mutations), serving as a key driver of tumor cell proliferation, survival, and metabolic reprogramming, and is also associated with chemotherapy resistance (176–178). Besides, this pathway can regulate the composition and function of various immune cells directly or indirectly (179). Abnormal activation of the MAPK/ERK pathway (often caused by KRAS gene mutations) not only affects cell proliferation, differentiation, and stress responses, but is also implicated in chemotherapy resistance (180, 181). Inhibiting this pathway may enhance the antitumor activity of T cells (182–184). As a core regulatory pathway for inflammatory responses, abnormal activation of the NF-κB pathway can not only promote tumor cell survival, metabolism, metastasis, and drug resistance, but also affect Treg development and stability and encoding of pro-inflammatory factors (185). Imbalance in estrogen and progesterone signaling pathways is central to the development of Type I EC. Continuous estrogen stimulation leads to abnormal endometrial hyperplasia, while progesterone resistance impairs fertility-preserving treatment efficacy in young patients (186). Furthermore, estrogen fosters an immunosuppressive microenvironment, which facilitates tumor cell immune evasion, for example, activation of estrogen signaling pathways may promote M2-like polarization of macrophages (187, 188).
The high metabolic demands of rapid proliferation drive metabolic reprogramming in tumor cells, including the Warburg effect (189). In addition to providing energy for tumor cells and supplying substances required for biosynthesis, this metabolic reprogramming also elevates the level of metabolic byproducts like lactate in the TME, which affects the phenotype of infiltrating immune cells (190, 191). Glucose availability in TME is crucial for maintaining NK/T cell function. Under high lactate and low glucose concentrations, effector T cells lose activity, but Tregs, which rely on oxidative phosphorylation, are unaffected (192, 193). Inhibition of glycolysis pathways promotes Treg generation (194). NK cells rely on glycolysis to maintain their activity (195). M1-like macrophages also rely on glycolysis for rapid ATP production (196). In contrast, M2-like macrophages upregulate oxidative phosphorylation and fatty acid oxidation (197). Therefore, tumor cells compete with immune cells in TME, excessively taking up glucose, helping to shape an immunosuppressive microenvironment (198). Similarly, tumor cells also compete with immune cells for amino acids such as glutamine, arginine, and tryptophan, which promotes Treg development, inhibits Th1 differentiation, and impairs NK cell functions (198–202). Metabolic reprogramming of tumor cells also affects lipid content of the TME (202, 203). Tregs can utilize fatty acids in the TME to enhance resistance to PD-L1 therapy (204). Lipid accumulation in DCs impairs their antigen presentation function (205).
Epigenetic mechanisms (such as histone modifications, non-coding RNA regulation, and DNA methylation changes) can cause heritable phenotypic changes without altering DNA sequences, thereby affecting tumor development, progression, and immune microenvironment (206). Methylation of tumor suppressor genes may promote immune defense, while demethylation of oncogenes may promote immune tolerance (206, 207). For example, demethylation of the ERBB2 promoter inhibits effector T cell induction and proliferation (208). Furthermore, non-coding RNAs such as miR-6794-5p can promote M2-like polarization of macrophages via the activation of JAK1/STAT3 pathway, which helps shape an immunosuppressive microenvironment (209).
The TIME is also influenced by systemic factors such as obesity and metabolic syndrome. Weight loss lowers systemic inflammation and promotes the infiltration of protective immune cells into the endometrium (210). Obesity not only elevates circulating estrogen levels but also leads to adipose tissue dysfunction, adipocyte stress, and cell death, ultimately triggering inflammation (211). Compared to EC patients with normal BMI, obese EC patients show increased infiltration of CD3+ T cells and CD163+ macrophages within tumor epithelium, suggesting that the TIME in obese patients may be more disrupted (212).
Molecular factors such as gene mutations, abnormal signaling pathways, and metabolic reprogramming interact with systemic factors like obesity to form a complex regulatory network, jointly shaping the TIME of EC. This network both promotes tumor cell proliferation and suppresses effective antitumor immunity, playing a crucial role in EC progression.
6 Role of the immune microenvironment in EC progression
At the earliest stage of tumorigenesis, an influx of naive T cells occurs, potentially performing immune surveillance to recognize and eliminate abnormal cells. However, as the lesion progresses, it rapidly transitions to an immunosuppressive microenvironment. Immune cell subsets undergo transformation, and genes involved in immune suppression are upregulated (12). The persistent chronic inflammatory state, immune-suppressive factors produced by tumor cells, and interactions among other components within the TME collectively shape an immunosuppressive TIME that promotes tumor growth, invasion, and metastasis.
Immune cell subsets such as Tregs and TAMs are known to play a critical role in shaping the tumor-promoting TME. Tregs mediate immune suppression through multiple mechanisms, including: blocking APCs (such as DCs) from delivering stimulatory signals to conventional T cells by overexpressing CTLA-4, LAG-3, and TIGIT; suppressing T cell development and function through the release of IL-10, IL-35, and TGF-β; directly killing CD8+ T cells by secreting granzymes and perforin (213, 214). TAMs usually polarize toward M2-like phenotype in TME, not only promoting tumor vascularization by secreting VEGF, but also promoting tumor invasion and metastasis by secreting factors such as MMP19 (85, 215). Furthermore, M2-like TAMs can recruit Tregs, exacerbate NK cell exhaustion, and suppress CD8+ effector T cell activity (216, 217). CD19+ B cells and CD138+ plasma cells exert anti-tumor effects by secreting IgA, which binds to plgR on tumor cells and triggers apoptosis (218).
CAFs, endothelial cells, and other non-immune cells also participate in tumor progression and immune regulation. CAFs show heterogeneity, including inflammatory CAFs (iCAFs), matrix CAFs (mCAFs), vascular CAFs (vCAFs), antigen-presenting CAFs (apCAFs) subtypes, respectively playing roles in creating immunosuppressive microenvironment, remodeling extracellular matrix, promoting angiogenesis, and participating in antigen presentation (219). Endothelial cells in EC are also heterogeneous, including lymphatic endothelial cells and vascular endothelial cells. These cells may acquire a malignant phenotype through the MDL-NCL signaling pathway derived from tumor epithelial cells (220).
In summary, the interaction between tumor cells, immune cells, and other stromal cells disrupts immune homeostasis through alterations in various molecular signals. Immune escape gradually overpowers immune surveillance functions, collectively shaping a microenvironment conducive to tumor growth. This ultimately enables tumor cells to overcome proliferation constraints, acquire invasive and metastatic capabilities, and promote the progression of EC.
7 Clinical significance of TIME in EC
The dynamic evolution of the immune microenvironment during the progression of EC holds significant clinical importance, particularly in assessing patient prognosis, predicting the efficacy of immunotherapy, and guiding immunotherapy strategies.
The characteristics of TIME are closely related to clinical outcomes in EC patients. As mentioned earlier, high-density CD8+ TILs and TLS are usually associated with better prognosis, while enrichment of Tregs and TAMs subsets may lead to worse prognosis. Among the four molecular subtypes of EC, POLEmut type has the best prognosis, followed by MSI-H and CNL types, with CNH type having the worst prognosis, which is largely related to their immune microenvironment characteristics (see Section 4: Immune Microenvironment of EC for details).
The characteristics of TIME serve as an important biological foundation for predicting immunotherapy efficacy. Immune-infiltrated tumors are characterized by high-density CD8+ TILs, high PD-L1 expression, and high TMB, responding well to ICIs, including MSI-H and POLEmut EC (203). Immune-suppressed tumors are characterized by enrichment of Tregs and M2-like macrophages, such as CNH EC (132). Immune desert tumors lack immune cell infiltration, such as CNL EC (143). Therefore, CNH and CNL EC have limited responses to ICI therapy.
The characteristics of TIME can guide immunotherapy strategies. For immune-infiltrated tumors, ICIs can be used directly for treatment; for immune-suppressed and immune desert tumors, the TME needs to be “heated” first, then combined with immunotherapy (203). Specifically, strategies can be employed to target immunosuppressive cells such as TAMs, including their elimination, inhibition of recruitment, reprogramming to M1-like phenotype, and restoration of their phagocytic capacity (221). Extracellular matrix (ECM) can also be remodeled to enhance drug delivery and immune cell infiltration by degrading the ECM using hyaluronidase, targeting pro-tumor subtypes of CAFs, and reducing ECM stiffness (222). Apart from these, therapies such as anti-angiogenesis, metabolic interventions, tumor vaccines, and oncolytic viruses can also improve the immune microenvironment and enhance the efficacy of immunotherapy (203).
8 Conclusion
This review systematically summarizes the dynamic changes of the immune microenvironment during the progression from normal endometrium through EIN to EC. The immune system of the normal endometrium is precisely regulated by estrogen and progesterone, undergoing periodic changes throughout the menstrual cycle to adapt to reproductive demands. During the EIN phase, the immune microenvironment begins to remodel, manifested by elevated systemic inflammatory markers and altered proportions of local immune cell subsets, suggesting an immune response to precancerous lesions and potential immune dysfunction. The TIME of EC shows high heterogeneity, and different subtypes exhibit different immune infiltration patterns. Immune cells (including T cells, macrophages, NK cells, DCs, B cells, TLS, etc.) and other stromal components (including fibroblasts, endothelial cells, ECM, etc.) play dual roles in promoting and suppressing tumors during this process, often related to molecular signals in the microenvironment. Molecular mechanisms driving immune microenvironment changes involve tumor cell gene mutations, abnormal signaling pathways, metabolic reprogramming, and systemic factors (such as obesity).
However, the causal relationship between the immune microenvironment and epithelial malignant transformation remains to be fully elucidated. On the one hand, an abnormal immune microenvironment can serve as a driving factor for carcinogenesis. Firstly, chronic inflammation activates pathways such as NF-κB, leading to DNA damage and abnormal proliferation, increased macrophage infiltration, and dysfunction of Tregs (223–225). Secondly, endometrial dysbiosis can also disrupt the immune surveillance function, which facilitates the malignant transformation of endometrial epithelial cells (226, 227). Thirdly, multiple studies have confirmed that the immunosuppressive phenotype emerges earlier than the pathological carcinogenic features, suggesting that it exerts a promoting effect on cancer at the precancerous lesion stage (228, 229). On the other hand, tumor cells can exacerbate carcinogenesis by actively shaping the immune microenvironment. Tumor cells can not only secrete immunosuppressive factors such as TGF-β and IL-10 to recruit inhibitory immune cells such as M2-like macrophages and Tregs, but also down-regulate the expression of MHC class I molecules to evade immune surveillance (230). Consequently, tumor cells and the immunosuppressive microenvironment form a bidirectional positive feedback loop.
Despite significant progress in EC immune microenvironment research in recent years, there are still some limitations. First, detailed characterization of the immune microenvironment at the EIN stage, especially the functional status of different immune cell subsets, remains limited. More research is needed to compare immune characteristics between normal endometrium, EIN (stratified by whether EC is present), and EC. Second, the spatial structure within the tumor microenvironment, interactions between immune cells, and positional relationships need further exploration. Third, within the same immune cell type, there may be multiple functionally different subsets (such as M2-like macrophages including M2a, M2b, M2c, M2d subsets), and the dynamic changes and specific functions of these subsets during EC progression need more detailed elucidation (231). Fourth, EC immune microenvironment needs to be combined with ICI resistance mechanisms for research to more precisely identify responsive populations and develop more effective treatment strategies. Fifth, although patient-derived EC organoid models have been developed, they lack complete immune systems and still cannot fully simulate the immune microenvironment, which limits further research on the immune microenvironment.
Therefore, future research should focus on the following directions. First, widely apply single-cell multi-omics technologies and spatial transcriptomics to map the immune microenvironment of normal endometrium to EIN to various molecular subtypes of EC with higher resolution, revealing spatial distribution of immune cells, different functions, and interaction networks. Second, construct preclinical models that better reflect the complexity of EC immune microenvironment for mechanism research and development of novel treatment strategies. Third, deeply study driving factors and key changes in the immune microenvironment at the EIN stage, exploring the possibility of immune intervention at the precancerous stage to prevent carcinogenesis. Fourth, search for immune characteristics valuable for EC prognosis based on multi-omics data and clinical cohorts. Fifth, explore more personalized combination treatment strategies based on EC molecular subtypes and individual immune microenvironment characteristics.
In conclusion, future advances will depend on in-depth understanding from multiple dimensions of the complex interactions between various cells and specific mechanisms of immune system dysfunction during EC development and progression, ultimately achieving precise and effective immunotherapy strategies based on individual patient characteristics.
Author contributions
YP: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. GZ: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. MZ: Visualization, Writing – review & editing. YY: Visualization, Writing – review & editing. KD: Data curation, Writing – review & editing. ZY: Data curation, Writing – review & editing. LA: Investigation, Writing – review & editing. JuZ: Investigation, Writing – review & editing. JiZ: Software, Writing – review & editing. SZ: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing. QT: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. HW: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was not received for this work and/or its publication.
Conflict of interest
The authors declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Glossary
EC: Endometrial Cancer
EIN: Endometrial Intraepithelial Neoplasia
AEH: Atypical Endometrial Hyperplasia
TME: Tumor Microenvironment
TIME: Tumor Immune Microenvironment
uNK: Uterine Natural Killer
eNK: Endometrial NK
dNK: Decidual NK
MMP: Matrix Metalloproteinases
Tregs: Regulatory T Cells
LAs: Lymphoid Aggregates
DCs: Dendritic Cells
MCs: Mast Cells
+: Positive
-: Negative
TLS: Tertiary Lymphoid Structure
NLR: Neutrophil/Lymphocyte Ratio
SEH: Simple Hyperplasia
CEH: Complex Hyperplasia
GZA: Granzyme A
GZB: Granzyme B
Th: Helper T Cells
TAMs: Tumor-Associated Macrophages
Bregs: Regulatory B cells
APCs: Antigen-Presenting Cells
RFS: Relapse-Free Survival
OS: Overall Survival
CTLA-4: Cytotoxic T Lymphocyte-Associated Antigen 4
TCGA: The Cancer Genome Atlas
ICIs: Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors
TMB: Tumor Mutational Burden
CNH: Copy-Number High
CNL: Copy-Number Low
FDCs: Follicular Dendritic Cells
FRCs: Fibroblastic Reticular Cells
dTLS: Distal TLS
PFS: Progression-Free Survival
EDM: Exonuclease Correction Domain
TILs: Tumor-Infiltrating Lymphocytes
CAFs: Cancer-Associated Fibroblasts
iCAFs: Inflammatory CAFs
mCAFs: Matrix CAFs
vCAFs: Vascular CAFs
apCAFs: Antigen-Presenting CAFs
ECM: Extracellular Matrix.
MSI-H: Microsatellite Instability-High
MMR: Mismatch Repair
References
1. Bray F, Laversanne M, Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Soerjomataram I, et al. Global cancer statistics 2022: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. (2024) 74:229–63. doi: 10.3322/caac.21834
2. Mahdy H, Vadakekut ES, and Crotzer D. Endometrial cancer. In: StatPearls. StatPearls Publishing LLC, Treasure Island (FL (2025).
3. Onstad MA, Schmandt RE, and Lu KH. Addressing the role of obesity in endometrial cancer risk, prevention, and treatment. J Clin Oncol. (2016) 34:4225–30. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.69.4638
4. Francoeur AA, Liao CI, Chang J, Johnson CR, Clair K, Tewari KS, et al. Associated trends in obesity and endometrioid endometrial cancer in the United States. Obstet Gynecol. (2025) 145:e107–16. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000005814
5. Calle EE and Kaaks R. Overweight, obesity and cancer: epidemiological evidence and proposed mechanisms. Nat Rev Cancer. (2004) 4:579–91. doi: 10.1038/nrc1408
6. Bokhman JV. Two pathogenetic types of endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. (1983) 15:10–7. doi: 10.1016/0090-8258(83)90111-7
7. Brooks RA, Fleming GF, Lastra RR, Lee NK, Moroney JW, Son CH, et al. Current recommendations and recent progress in endometrial cancer. CA Cancer J Clin. (2019) 69:258–79. doi: 10.3322/caac.21561
8. Chen H, Strickland AL, and Castrillon DH. Histopathologic diagnosis of endometrial precancers: Updates and future directions. Semin Diagn Pathol. (2022) 39:137–47. doi: 10.1053/j.semdp.2021.12.001
9. Giannella L, Grelloni C, Bernardi M, Cicoli C, Lavezzo F, Sartini G, et al. Atypical endometrial hyperplasia and concurrent cancer: A comprehensive overview on a challenging clinical condition. Cancers (Basel). (2024) 16. doi: 10.3390/cancers16050914
10. Jarboe EA and Mutter GL. Endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia. Semin Diagn Pathol. (2010) 27:215–25. doi: 10.1053/j.semdp.2010.09.007
11. Baak JP, Mutter GL, Robboy S, van Diest PJ, Uyterlinde AM, Orbo A, et al. The molecular genetics and morphometry-based endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia classification system predicts disease progression in endometrial hyperplasia more accurately than the 1994 World Health Organization classification system. Cancer. (2005) 103:2304–12. doi: 10.1002/cncr.21058
12. de Visser KE and Joyce JA. The evolving tumor microenvironment: From cancer initiation to metastatic outgrowth. Cancer Cell. (2023) 41:374–403. doi: 10.1016/j.ccell.2023.02.016
13. Peña-Romero AC and Orenes-Piñero E. Dual effect of immune cells within tumour microenvironment: pro- and anti-tumour effects and their triggers. Cancers (Basel). (2022) 14. doi: 10.3390/cancers14071681
14. Ren X, Liang J, Zhang Y, Jiang N, Xu Y, Qiu M, et al. Single-cell transcriptomic analysis highlights origin and pathological process of human endometrioid endometrial carcinoma. Nat Commun. (2022) 13:6300. doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-33982-7
15. Lea RG and Clark DA. The immune function of the endometrium. Baillieres Clin Obstet Gynaecol. (1989) 3:293–313. doi: 10.1016/S0950-3552(89)80023-9
16. Lee JY, Lee M, and Lee SK. Role of endometrial immune cells in implantation. Clin Exp Reprod Med. (2011) 38:119–25. doi: 10.5653/cerm.2011.38.3.119
17. Xie M, Li Y, Meng YZ, Xu P, Yang YG, Dong S, et al. Uterine natural killer cells: A rising star in human pregnancy regulation. Front Immunol. (2022) 13:918550. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.918550
18. Zhang J, Dunk CE, Kwan M, Jones RL, Harris LK, Keating S, et al. Human dNK cell function is differentially regulated by extrinsic cellular engagement and intrinsic activating receptors in first and second trimester pregnancy. Cell Mol Immunol. (2017) 14:203–13. doi: 10.1038/cmi.2015.66
19. Wang F, Qualls AE, Marques-Fernandez L, and and Colucci F. Biology and pathology of the uterine microenvironment and its natural killer cells. Cell Mol Immunol. (2021) 18:2101–13. doi: 10.1038/s41423-021-00739-z
20. Russell P, Sacks G, Tremellen K, and and Gee A. The distribution of immune cells and macrophages in the endometrium of women with recurrent reproductive failure. III: Further observations and reference ranges. Pathology. (2013) 45:393–401. doi: 10.1097/PAT.0b013e328361429b
21. Strunz B, Bister J, Jönsson H, Filipovic I, Crona-Guterstam Y, Kvedaraite E, et al. Continuous human uterine NK cell differentiation in response to endometrial regeneration and pregnancy. Sci Immunol. (2021) 6. doi: 10.1126/sciimmunol.abb7800
22. Yagel S. The developmental role of natural killer cells at the fetal-maternal interface. Am J Obstet Gynecol. (2009) 201:344–50. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2009.02.030
23. de Mendonça Vieira R, Meagher A, Crespo ÂC, Kshirsagar SK, Iyer V, Norwitz ER, et al. Human term pregnancy decidual NK cells generate distinct cytotoxic responses. J Immunol. (2020) 204:3149–59. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1901435
24. Gaynor LM and Colucci F. Uterine natural killer cells: functional distinctions and influence on pregnancy in humans and mice. Front Immunol. (2017) 8:467. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2017.00467
25. Park M, Kim YS, and Song H. Macrophages: a double-edged sword in female reproduction and disorders. Exp Mol Med. (2025) 57:285–97. doi: 10.1038/s12276-025-01392-6
26. Givan AL, White HD, Stern JE, Colby E, Gosselin EJ, Guyre PM, et al. Flow cytometric analysis of leukocytes in the human female reproductive tract: comparison of fallopian tube, uterus, cervix, and vagina. Am J Reprod Immunol. (1997) 38:350–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0897.1997.tb00311.x
27. Marečková M, Garcia-Alonso L, Moullet M, Lorenzi V, Petryszak R, Sancho-Serra C, et al. An integrated single-cell reference atlas of the human endometrium. Nat Genet. (2024) 56:1925–37. doi: 10.1038/s41588-024-01873-w
28. Salamonsen LA, Hutchison JC, and Gargett CE. Cyclical endometrial repair and regeneration. Development. (2021) 148. doi: 10.1242/dev.199577
29. Mani S, Garifallou J, Kim SJ, Simoni MK, Huh DD, Gordon SM, et al. Uterine macrophages and NK cells exhibit population and gene-level changes after implantation but maintain pro-invasive properties. Front Immunol. (2024) 15:1364036. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2024.1364036
30. Rieger L, Honig A, Sütterlin M, Kapp M, Dietl J, Ruck P, et al. Antigen-presenting cells in human endometrium during the menstrual cycle compared to early pregnancy. J Soc Gynecol Investig. (2004) 11:488–93. doi: 10.1016/j.jsgi.2004.05.007
31. Hunt JS, Manning LS, and Wood GW. Macrophages in murine uterus are immunosuppressive. Cell Immunol. (1984) 85:499–510. doi: 10.1016/0008-8749(84)90262-4
32. Chambers M, Rees A, Cronin JG, Nair M, Jones N, and Thornton CA, et al. Macrophage plasticity in reproduction and environmental influences on their function. Front Immunol. (2020) 11:607328. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2020.607328
33. Chernyshov VP, Dons'koi BV, Sudoma IO, and and Goncharova YO. Comparison of T and NK lymphocyte subsets between human endometrial tissue and peripheral blood. Cent Eur J Immunol. (2019) 44:316–21. doi: 10.5114/ceji.2019.89610
34. Salamonsen LA and Woolley DE. Menstruation: induction by matrix metalloproteinases and inflammatory cells. J Reprod Immunol. (1999) 44:1–27. doi: 10.1016/S0165-0378(99)00002-9
35. Shanmugasundaram U, Critchfield JW, Pannell J, Perry J, Giudice LC, Smith-McCune K, et al. Phenotype and functionality of CD4+ and CD8+ T cells in the upper reproductive tract of healthy premenopausal women. Am J Reprod Immunol. (2014) 71:95–108. doi: 10.1111/aji.12182
36. Salamonsen LA and Lathbury LJ. Endometrial leukocytes and menstruation. Hum Reprod Update. (2000) 6:16–27. doi: 10.1093/humupd/6.1.16
37. Lee SK, Kim CJ, Kim DJ, and and Kang JH. Immune cells in the female reproductive tract. Immune Netw. (2015) 15:16–26. doi: 10.4110/in.2015.15.1.16
38. Mor G, Aldo P, and Alvero AB. The unique immunological and microbial aspects of pregnancy. Nat Rev Immunol. (2017) 17:469–82. doi: 10.1038/nri.2017.64
39. Huang N, Chi H, and Qiao J. Role of regulatory T cells in regulating fetal-maternal immune tolerance in healthy pregnancies and reproductive diseases. Front Immunol. (2020) 11:1023. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2020.01023
40. Klentzeris LD, Bulmer JN, Warren A, Morrison L, Li TC, and and Cooke ID. Endometrial lymphoid tissue in the timed endometrial biopsy: morphometric and immunohistochemical aspects. Am J Obstet Gynecol. (1992) 167:667–74. doi: 10.1016/S0002-9378(11)91568-3
41. Shen M, O'Donnell E, Leon G, Kisovar A, Melo P, Zondervan K, et al. The role of endometrial B cells in normal endometrium and benign female reproductive pathologies: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Open. (2022) 2022:hoab043. doi: 10.1093/hropen/hoab043
42. Schulke L, Manconi F, Markham R, and and Fraser IS. Endometrial dendritic cell populations during the normal menstrual cycle. Hum Reprod. (2008) 23:1574–80. doi: 10.1093/humrep/den030
43. Maridas DE, Hey-Cunningham AJ, Ng CHM, Markham R, Fraser IS, and and Berbic M. Peripheral and endometrial dendritic cell populations during the normal cycle and in the presence of endometriosis. J Endometr Pelvic Pain Disord. (2014) 6:67–119. doi: 10.5301/je.5000180
44. Qiaomei Z, Ping W, Yanjing Z, Jinhua W, Shaozhan C, and and Lihong C. Features of peritoneal dendritic cells in the development of endometriosis. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. (2023) 21:4. doi: 10.1186/s12958-023-01058-w
45. Wu HM, Chen LH, Hsu LT, and and Lai CH. Immune tolerance of embryo implantation and pregnancy: the role of human decidual stromal cell- and embryonic-derived extracellular vesicles. Int J Mol Sci. (2022) 23. doi: 10.3390/ijms232113382
46. Lutz MB and Schuler G. Immature, semi-mature and fully mature dendritic cells: which signals induce tolerance or immunity? Trends Immunol. (2002) 23:445–9. doi: 10.1016/S1471-4906(02)02281-0
47. Sivridis E, Giatromanolaki A, Agnantis N, and and Anastasiadis P. Mast cell distribution and density in the normal uterus--metachromatic staining using lectins. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. (2001) 98:109–13. doi: 10.1016/S0301-2115(00)00564-9
48. De Leo B, Esnal-Zufiaurre A, Collins F, Critchley HOD, and and Saunders PTK. Immunoprofiling of human uterine mast cells identifies three phenotypes and expression of ERβ and glucocorticoid receptor. F1000Res. (2017) 6:667. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.11432.2
49. Salamonsen LA, Zhang J, and Brasted M. Leukocyte networks and human endometrial remodelling. J Reprod Immunol. (2002) 57:95–108. doi: 10.1016/S0165-0378(02)00011-6
50. Jorgenson RL, Young SL, Lesmeister MJ, Lyddon TD, and and Misfeldt ML. Human endometrial epithelial cells cyclically express Toll-like receptor 3 (TLR3) and exhibit TLR3-dependent responses to dsRNA. Hum Immunol. (2005) 66:469–82. doi: 10.1016/j.humimm.2004.12.003
51. Sheldon IM and Roberts MH. Toll-like receptor 4 mediates the response of epithelial and stromal cells to lipopolysaccharide in the endometrium. PloS One. (2010) 5:e12906. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0012906
52. Wallace PK, Yeaman GR, Johnson K, Collins JE, Guyre PM, and and Wira CR. MHC class II expression and antigen presentation by human endometrial cells. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. (2001) 76:203–11. doi: 10.1016/S0960-0760(00)00149-7
53. Ding S, Hao Y, Qi Y, Wei H, Zhang J, and and Li H. Molecular mechanism of tumor-infiltrating immune cells regulating endometrial carcinoma. Genes Dis. (2025) 12:101442. doi: 10.1016/j.gendis.2024.101442
54. Wira CR, Fahey JV, Rodriguez-Garcia M, Shen Z, and and Patel MV. Regulation of mucosal immunity in the female reproductive tract: the role of sex hormones in immune protection against sexually transmitted pathogens. Am J Reprod Immunol. (2014) 72:236–58. doi: 10.1111/aji.12252
55. Yeaman GR, Collins JE, Fanger MW, Wira CR, and and Lydyard PM. CD8+ T cells in human uterine endometrial lymphoid aggregates: evidence for accumulation of cells by trafficking. Immunology. (2001) 102:434–40. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2567.2001.01199.x
56. Agostinis C, Mangogna A, Bossi F, Ricci G, Kishore U, and and Bulla R. Uterine immunity and microbiota: A shifting paradigm. Front Immunol. (2019) 10:2387. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2019.02387
57. Maruyama T and Yoshimura Y. Molecular and cellular mechanisms for differentiation and regeneration of the uterine endometrium. Endocr J. (2008) 55:795–810. doi: 10.1507/endocrj.K08E-067
58. van der Woude H, Hally KE, Currie MJ, Gasser O, and and Henry CE. Importance of the endometrial immune environment in endometrial cancer and associated therapies. Front Oncol. (2022) 12:975201. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2022.975201
59. Dias Da Silva I, Wuidar V, Zielonka M, and and Pequeux C. Unraveling the dynamics of estrogen and progesterone signaling in the endometrium: an overview. Cells. (2024) 13. doi: 10.3390/cells13151236
60. Critchley HOD, Maybin JA, Armstrong GM, and and Williams ARW. Physiology of the endometrium and regulation of menstruation. Physiol Rev. (2020) 100:1149–79. doi: 10.1152/physrev.00031.2019
61. Phiel KL, Henderson RA, Adelman SJ, and and Elloso MM. Differential estrogen receptor gene expression in human peripheral blood mononuclear cell populations. Immunol Lett. (2005) 97:107–13. doi: 10.1016/j.imlet.2004.10.007
62. Kalaitzidis D and Gilmore TD. Transcription factor cross-talk: the estrogen receptor and NF-kappaB. Trends Endocrinol Metab. (2005) 16:46–52. doi: 10.1016/j.tem.2005.01.004
63. Laffont S, Rouquié N, Azar P, Seillet C, Plumas J, Aspord C, et al. X-Chromosome complement and estrogen receptor signaling independently contribute to the enhanced TLR7-mediated IFN-α production of plasmacytoid dendritic cells from women. J Immunol. (2014) 193:5444–52. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1303400
64. Kovats S. Estrogen receptors regulate innate immune cells and signaling pathways. Cell Immunol. (2015) 294:63–9. doi: 10.1016/j.cellimm.2015.01.018
65. Carreras E, Turner S, Frank MB, Knowlton N, Osban J, Centola M, et al. Estrogen receptor signaling promotes dendritic cell differentiation by increasing expression of the transcription factor IRF4. Blood. (2010) 115:238–46. doi: 10.1182/blood-2009-08-236935
66. Oliver R and Pillarisetty LS. Anatomy, abdomen and pelvis, ovary corpus luteum. In: StatPearls. StatPearls Publishing LLC, Treasure Island (FL (2025).
67. Anckaert E, Jank A, Petzold J, Rohsmann F, Paris R, Renggli M, et al. Extensive monitoring of the natural menstrual cycle using the serum biomarkers estradiol, luteinizing hormone and progesterone. Pract Lab Med. (2021) 25:e00211. doi: 10.1016/j.plabm.2021.e00211
68. Hughes GC, Clark EA, and Wong AH. The intracellular progesterone receptor regulates CD4+ T cells and T cell-dependent antibody responses. J Leukoc Biol. (2013) 93:369–75. doi: 10.1189/jlb.1012491
69. Lissauer D, Eldershaw SA, Inman CF, Coomarasamy A, Moss PA, and and Kilby MD. Progesterone promotes maternal-fetal tolerance by reducing human maternal T-cell polyfunctionality and inducing a. specific Cytokine profile. Eur J Immunol. (2015) 45:2858–72. doi: 10.1002/eji.201445404
70. Pandey J and Yonder S. Premalignant lesions of the endometrium. In: StatPearls. StatPearls Publishing LLC, Treasure Island (FL (2025).
71. Emons G, Beckmann MW, Schmidt D, and and Mallmann P. New WHO classification of endometrial hyperplasias. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. (2015) 75:135–6. doi: 10.1055/s-0034-1396256
72. Widra EA, Dunton CJ, McHugh M, and and Palazzo JP. Endometrial hyperplasia and the risk of carcinoma. Int J Gynecol Cancer. (1995) 5:233–5. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-1438.1995.05030233.x
73. Hutt S, Tailor A, Ellis P, Michael A, Butler-Manuel S, and and Chatterjee J. The role of biomarkers in endometrial cancer and hyperplasia: a literature review. Acta Oncol. (2019) 58:342–52. doi: 10.1080/0284186X.2018.1540886
74. Chou AJ, Bing RS, and Ding DC. Endometrial atypical hyperplasia and risk of endometrial cancer. Diagnostics (Basel). (2024) 14. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics14222471
75. Alper ECD, Coşkun ADE, and Vural F. Comparison of nonspecific inflammatory markers in endometrial cancer and hyperplasia. Rev Assoc Med Bras (1992). (2021) 67:966–70. doi: 10.1590/1806-9282.20210318
76. Ni L, Tao J, Xu J, Yuan X, Long Y, Yu N, et al. Prognostic values of pretreatment neutrophil-to-lymphocyte and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratios in endometrial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Gynecol Obstet. (2020) 301:251–61. doi: 10.1007/s00404-019-05372-w
77. Lai ZZ, Ruan LY, Wang Y, Yang HL, Shi JW, Wu JN, et al. Changes in subsets of immunocytes in endometrial hyperplasia. Am J Reprod Immunol. (2020) 84:e13295. doi: 10.1111/aji.13295
78. Witkiewicz AK, McConnell T, Potoczek M, Emmons RV, and and Kurman RJ. Increased natural killer cells and decreased regulatory T cells are seen in complex atypical endometrial hyperplasia and well-differentiated carcinoma treated with progestins. Hum Pathol. (2010) 41:26–32. doi: 10.1016/j.humpath.2009.06.012
79. Pan J, Qu J, Fang W, Zhao L, Zheng W, Zhai L, et al. SHP2-triggered endothelial cell activation fuels estradiol-independent endometrial sterile inflammation. Adv Sci (Weinh). (2024) 11:e2403038. doi: 10.1002/advs.202403038
80. Xue Y, Dong Y, Lou Y, Lv Q, Shan W, Wang C, et al. PTEN mutation predicts unfavorable fertility preserving treatment outcome in the young patients with endometrioid endometrial cancer and atypical hyperplasia. J Gynecol Oncol. (2023) 34:e53. doi: 10.3802/jgo.2023.34.e53
81. Nero C, Ciccarone F, Pietragalla A, and and Scambia G. PTEN and gynecological cancers. Cancers (Basel). (2019) 11. doi: 10.3390/cancers11101458
82. Greygoose E, Metharom P, Kula H, Seckin TK, Seckin TA, Ayhan A, et al. The estrogen-immune interface in endometriosis. Cells. (2025) 14. doi: 10.3390/cells14010058
83. Zhang H, Weimin K, Chao H, Tingting L, Jing L, and and Song D. Correlation of metabolic factors with endometrial atypical hyperplasia and endometrial cancer: development and assessment of a new predictive nomogram. Cancer Manage Res. (2021) 13:7937–49. doi: 10.2147/CMAR.S335924
84. Corey L, Wu S, Brodskiy P, Hodges K, Oberley MJ, Musallam R, et al. Molecular classification of endometrial carcinoma applied to endometrial atypical hyperplasia biopsy specimens. J Clin Oncol. (2022) 40:e17622–2. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2022.40.16_suppl.e17622
85. Ren F, Wang L, Wang Y, Wang J, Wang Y, Song X, et al. Single-cell transcriptome profiles the heterogeneity of tumor cells and microenvironments for different pathological endometrial cancer and identifies specific sensitive drugs. Cell Death Dis. (2024) 15:571. doi: 10.1038/s41419-024-06960-8
86. Sun Y, Jiang G, Wu Q, Ye L, and and Li B. The role of tumor-associated macrophages in the progression, prognosis and treatment of endometrial cancer. Front Oncol. (2023) 13:1213347. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1213347
87. Patel MV, Shen Z, Rodriguez-Garcia M, Usherwood EJ, Tafe LJ, and Wira CR, et al. Endometrial cancer suppresses CD8+ T cell-mediated cytotoxicity in postmenopausal women. Front Immunol. (2021) 12:657326. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2021.657326
88. Qin M, Hamanishi J, Ukita M, Yamanoi K, Takamatsu S, Abiko K, et al. Tertiary lymphoid structures are associated with favorable survival outcomes in patients with endometrial cancer. Cancer Immunol Immunother. (2022) 71:1431–42. doi: 10.1007/s00262-021-03093-1
89. Liu W, Sun L, Zhang J, Song W, Li M, and Wang H, et al. The landscape and prognostic value of immune characteristics in uterine corpus endometrial cancer. Biosci Rep. (2021) 41. doi: 10.1042/BSR20202321
90. Nagase Y, Kodama M, Aimono E, Nakamura K, Takamatsu R, Abe K, et al. CXCL9 and CXCL13 shape endometrial cancer immune-activated microenvironment via tertiary lymphoid structure formation. Cancer Sci. (2025) 116:1193–202. doi: 10.1111/cas.16371
91. Dyduch G, Miążek A, Laskowicz Ł, and and Szpor J. Distribution of DC subtypes: CD83+, DC-LAMP+, CD1a+, CD1c+, CD123+, and DC-SIGN+ in the tumor microenvironment of endometrial cancers-correlation with clinicopathologic features. Int J Mol Sci. (2023) 24. doi: 10.3390/ijms24031933
92. Vanderstraeten A, Tuyaerts S, and Amant F. The immune system in the normal endometrium and implications for endometrial cancer development. J Reprod Immunol. (2015) 109:7–16. doi: 10.1016/j.jri.2014.12.006
93. Vanderstraeten A, Luyten C, Verbist G, Tuyaerts S, and and Amant F. Mapping the immunosuppressive environment in uterine tumors: implications for immunotherapy. Cancer Immunol Immunother. (2014) 63:545–57. doi: 10.1007/s00262-014-1537-8
94. Horeweg N, Workel HH, Loiero D, Church DN, Vermij L, Léon-Castillo A, et al. Tertiary lymphoid structures critical for prognosis in endometrial cancer patients. Nat Commun. (2022) 13:1373. doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-29040-x
95. Song X, Na R, Peng N, Cao W, and and Ke Y. Exploring the role of macrophages in the progression from atypical hyperplasia to endometrial carcinoma through single-cell transcriptomics and bulk transcriptomics analysis. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). (2023) 14:1198944. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2023.1198944
96. Miyatake T, Tringler B, Liu W, Liu SH, Papkoff J, Enomoto T, et al. B7-H4 (DD-O110) is overexpressed in high risk uterine endometrioid adenocarcinomas and inversely correlated with tumor T-cell infiltration. Gynecol Oncol. (2007) 106:119–27. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2007.03.039
97. Lin Y, Lin Q, Guan Q, Chen D, Zhou Y, and and Li S. Immune cell infiltration as a prognostic factor in endometrial cancer: a meta-analysis. Am J Cancer Res. (2025) 15:1335–45. doi: 10.62347/BXZM8857
98. Mendiola M, Pellinen T, Ramon-Patino JL, Berjon A, Bruck O, Heredia-Soto V, et al. Prognostic implications of tumor-infiltrating T cells in early-stage endometrial cancer. Modern Pathol. (2022) 35:256–65. doi: 10.1038/s41379-021-00930-7
99. Guo F, Dong Y, Tan Q, Kong J, and and Yu B. Tissue infiltrating immune cells as prognostic biomarkers in endometrial cancer: A meta-analysis. Dis Markers. (2020) 2020:1805764. doi: 10.1155/2020/1805764
100. Zou X, Shen J, Zhang H, Kong F, Jin X, and Zhang L, et al. Association between immune cells and endometrial cancer: A bidirectional Mendelian randomization study. Med (Baltimore). (2024) 103:e38129. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000038129
101. Kolben T, Mannewitz M, Perleberg C, Schnell K, Anz D, Hahn L, et al. Presence of regulatory T-cells in endometrial cancer predicts poorer overall survival and promotes progression of tumor cells. Cell Oncol (Dordr). (2022) 45:1171–85. doi: 10.1007/s13402-022-00708-2
102. Wang S, Wang J, Chen Z, Luo J, Guo W, Sun L, et al. Targeting M2-like tumor-associated macrophages is a potential therapeutic approach to overcome antitumor drug resistance. NPJ Precis Oncol. (2024) 8:31. doi: 10.1038/s41698-024-00522-z
103. Yang Q, Guo N, Zhou Y, Chen J, Wei Q, and Han M, et al. The role of tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) in tumor progression and relevant advance in targeted therapy. Acta Pharm Sin B. (2020) 10:2156–70. doi: 10.1016/j.apsb.2020.04.004
104. Downs-Canner SM, Meier J, Vincent BG, and and Serody JS. B cell function in the tumor microenvironment. Annu Rev Immunol. (2022) 40:169–93. doi: 10.1146/annurev-immunol-101220-015603
105. Sautès-Fridman C, Verneau J, Sun C-M, Moreira M, Chen TW-W, Meylan M, et al. Tertiary Lymphoid Structures and B cells: Clinical impact and therapeutic modulation in cancer. Semin Immunol. (2020) 48:101406. doi: 10.1016/j.smim.2020.101406
106. Dieu-Nosjean MC, Goc J, Giraldo NA, Sautès-Fridman C, and and Fridman WH. Tertiary lymphoid structures in cancer and beyond. Trends Immunol. (2014) 35:571–80. doi: 10.1016/j.it.2014.09.006
107. Romani C, Capoferri D, Reijnen C, Lonardi S, Ravaggi A, Ratti M, et al. L1CAM expression as a predictor of platinum response in high-risk endometrial carcinoma. Int J Cancer. (2022) 151:637–48. doi: 10.1002/ijc.34035
108. Jacobs R, Hintzen G, Kemper A, Beul K, Kempf S, Behrens G, et al. CD56bright cells differ in their KIR repertoire and cytotoxic features from CD56dim NK cells. Eur J Immunol. (2001) 31:3121–7. doi: 10.1002/1521-4141(2001010)31:10<3121::AID-IMMU3121>3.0.CO;2-4
109. Liu X, Wang Y, Lu H, Li J, Yan X, Xiao M, et al. Genome-wide analysis identifies NR4A1 as a key mediator of T cell dysfunction. Nature. (2019) 567:525–9. doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-0979-8
110. Shi W, Wu W, Wang J, and and Meng X. Single-cell transcriptomics reveals comprehensive microenvironment and highlights the dysfuntional state of NK cells in endometrioid carcinoma. Med (Baltimore). (2024) 103:e37555. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000037555
111. Gómez-Raposo C, Merino Salvador M, Aguayo Zamora C, García de Santiago B, and and Casado Sáenz E. Immune checkpoint inhibitors in endometrial cancer. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. (2021) 161:103306. doi: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2021.103306
112. Carosella ED and Horuzsko A. HLA-G and cancer. Semin Cancer Biol. (2007) 17:411–2. doi: 10.1016/j.semcancer.2007.06.014
113. Hazini A, Fisher K, and Seymour L. Deregulation of HLA-I in cancer and its central importance for immunotherapy. J Immunother Cancer. (2021) 9. doi: 10.1136/jitc-2021-002899
114. Zhan L, Zhang J, Zhang J, Liu X, Zhu S, Shi Y, et al. LC3 and NLRC5 interaction inhibits NLRC5-mediated MHC class I antigen presentation pathway in endometrial cancer. Cancer Lett. (2022) 529:37–52. doi: 10.1016/j.canlet.2021.12.031
115. Ben Yahia H, Boujelbene N, Babay W, Ben Safta I, Dhouioui S, Zemni I, et al. Expression analysis of immune-regulatory molecules HLA-G, HLA-E and IDO in endometrial cancer. Hum Immunol. (2020) 81:305–13. doi: 10.1016/j.humimm.2020.03.008
116. de Jong RA, Kema IP, Boerma A, Boezen HM, der Want JJLv, Gooden MJM, et al. Prognostic role of indoleamine 2, 3-dioxygenase in endometrial carcinoma. Gynecologic Oncol. (2012) 126:474–80. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.05.034
117. Huang C-T, Workman CJ, Flies D, Pan X, Marson AL, Zhou G, et al. Role of LAG-3 in regulatory T cells. Immunity. (2004) 21:503–13. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2004.08.010
118. Zhang Y, Yang R, Xu C, Zhang Y, Deng M, Wu D, et al. Analysis of the immune checkpoint lymphocyte activation gene-3 (LAG-3) in endometrial cancer: An emerging target for immunotherapy. Pathol - Res Pract. (2022) 236:153990. doi: 10.1016/j.prp.2022.153990
119. Kandoth C, Schultz N, Cherniack AD, Akbani R, Liu Y, Shen H, et al. Integrated genomic characterization of endometrial carcinoma. Nature. (2013) 497:67–73. doi: 10.1038/nature12113
120. Yao X, Feng M, and Wang W. The clinical and pathological characteristics of POLE-mutated endometrial cancer: A comprehensive review. Cancer Manag Res. (2024) 16:117–25. doi: 10.2147/CMAR.S445055
121. Wong RW-C and Cheung ANY. Predictive and prognostic biomarkers in female genital tract tumours: an update highlighting their clinical relevance and practical issues. Pathology. (2024) 56:214–27. doi: 10.1016/j.pathol.2023.10.013
122. Temko D, Van Gool IC, Rayner E, Glaire M, Makino S, Brown M, et al. Somatic POLE exonuclease domain mutations are early events in sporadic endometrial and colorectal carcinogenesis, determining driver mutational landscape, clonal neoantigen burden and immune response. J Pathol. (2018) 245:283–96. doi: 10.1002/path.5081
123. McAlpine JN, Chiu DS, Nout RA, Church DN, Schmidt P, Lam S, et al. Evaluation of treatment effects in patients with endometrial cancer and POLE mutations: An individual patient data meta-analysis. Cancer. (2021) 127:2409–22. doi: 10.1002/cncr.33516
124. Imboden S, Nastic D, Ghaderi M, Rydberg F, Rau TT, Mueller MD, et al. Phenotype of POLE-mutated endometrial cancer. PloS One. (2019) 14:e0214318. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0214318
125. Talhouk A, Derocher H, Schmidt P, Leung S, Milne K, Gilks CB, et al. Molecular subtype not immune response drives outcomes in endometrial carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res. (2019) 25:2537–48. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-18-3241
126. Li K, Luo H, Huang L, Luo H, and and Zhu X. Microsatellite instability: a review of what the oncologist should know. Cancer Cell Int. (2020) 20:16. doi: 10.1186/s12935-019-1091-8
127. Cao W, Ma X, Fischer JV, Sun C, Kong B, and Zhang Q, et al. Immunotherapy in endometrial cancer: rationale, practice and perspectives. biomark Res. (2021) 9:49. doi: 10.1186/s40364-021-00301-z
128. Howitt BE, Shukla SA, Sholl LM, Ritterhouse LL, Watkins JC, Rodig S, et al. Association of polymerase e-mutated and microsatellite-instable endometrial cancers with neoantigen load, number of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, and expression of PD-1 and PD-L1. JAMA Oncol. (2015) 1:1319–23. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.2151
129. Gargiulo P, Della Pepa C, Berardi S, Califano D, Scala S, Buonaguro L, et al. Tumor genotype and immune microenvironment in POLE-ultramutated and MSI-hypermutated Endometrial Cancers: New candidates for checkpoint blockade immunotherapy? Cancer Treat Rev. (2016) 48:61–8. doi: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2016.06.008
130. Eggink FA, Van Gool IC, Leary A, Pollock PM, Crosbie EJ, Mileshkin L, et al. Immunological profiling of molecularly classified high-risk endometrial cancers identifies POLE-mutant and microsatellite unstable carcinomas as candidates for checkpoint inhibition. Oncoimmunology. (2017) 6:e1264565. doi: 10.1080/2162402X.2016.1264565
131. Ana O, Lucy G, Anna VT, Jubilee B, Cara M, Joshua P, et al. Safety and antitumor activity of dostarlimab in patients with advanced or recurrent DNA mismatch repair deficient/microsatellite instability-high (dMMR/MSI-H) or proficient/stable (MMRp/MSS) endometrial cancer: interim results from GARNET--a phase I, single-arm study. J ImmunoTherapy Cancer. (2022) 10:e003777. doi: 10.1136/jitc-2021-003777
132. Dai Y, Zhao L, Hua D, Cui L, Zhang X, Kang N, et al. Tumor immune microenvironment in endometrial cancer of different molecular subtypes: evidence from a retrospective observational study. Front Immunol. (2022) 13:1035616. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.1035616
133. Juan Francisco Grau B, Elisa Yaniz G, Qinghe Z, Catherine G, Etienne R, Marco de B, et al. Immune predictors of response to immune checkpoint inhibitors in mismatch repair-deficient endometrial cancer. J ImmunoTherapy Cancer. (2024) 12:e009143. doi: 10.1136/jitc-2024-009143
134. Steger K, Fiegl H, Feroz B, Leitner K, Marth C, Hackl H, et al. Differences in immunogenicity of TP53-mutated cancers with low tumor mutational burden (TMB) A study on TP53mut endometrial-, ovarian- and triple-negative breast cancer. Eur J Cancer. (2025) 219:115320. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2025.115320
135. Momeni-Boroujeni A, Dahoud W, Vanderbilt CM, Chiang S, Murali R, Rios-Doria EV, et al. Clinicopathologic and genomic analysis of TP53-mutated endometrial carcinomas. Clin Cancer Res. (2021) 27:2613–23. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-20-4436
136. Pere H, Tapper J, Wahlström T, Knuutila S, and and Butzow R. Distinct chromosomal imbalances in uterine serous and endometrioid carcinomas. Cancer Res. (1998) 58:892–5.
137. Zheng W, Cao P, Zheng M, Kramer EE, and and Godwin TA. p53 overexpression and bcl-2 persistence in endometrial carcinoma: comparison of papillary serous and endometrioid subtypes. Gynecol Oncol. (1996) 61:167–74. doi: 10.1006/gyno.1996.0120
138. Fadare O, Gwin K, Desouki MM, Crispens MA, Jones HW, Khabele D, et al. The clinicopathologic significance of p53 and BAF-250a (ARID1A) expression in clear cell carcinoma of the endometrium. Mod Pathol. (2013) 26:1101–10. doi: 10.1038/modpathol.2013.35
139. Chen Y, Zhao W, Bi F, Pan X, Yin L, and Zhao C, et al. Significance of TP53 mutational status-associated signature in the progression and prognosis of endometrial carcinoma. Oxid Med Cell Longev. (2022) 2022:1817339. doi: 10.1155/2022/1817339
140. Weigelt B, Marra A, Selenica P, Rios-Doria E, Momeni-Boroujeni A, Berger MF, et al. Molecular characterization of endometrial carcinomas in black and white patients reveals disparate drivers with therapeutic implications. Cancer Discov. (2023) 13:2356–69. doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-23-0546
141. Bosse T, Nout RA, McAlpine JN, McConechy MK, Britton H, Hussein YR, et al. Molecular classification of grade 3 endometrioid endometrial cancers identifies distinct prognostic subgroups. Am J Surg Pathol. (2018) 42:561–8. doi: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000001020
142. Junya T, Masataka T, and Aikou O. Molecular typing guiding treatment and prognosis of endometrial cancer. Gynecology Obstetrics Clin Med. (2023) 3. doi: 10.1016/j.gocm.2023.01.011
143. Liwei L, He L, Yibo D, Luyang Z, Zhihui S, Nan K, et al. Re-stratification of patients with copy-number low endometrial cancer by clinicopathological characteristics. World J Surg Oncol. (2023) 21:332. doi: 10.1186/s12957-023-03229-w
144. Zheng S, Wang W, Shen L, Yao Y, Xia W, and Ni C, et al. Tumor battlefield within inflamed, excluded or desert immune phenotypes: the mechanisms and strategies. Exp Hematol Oncol. (2024) 13:80. doi: 10.1186/s40164-024-00543-1
145. Zou J, Zhang Y, Zeng Y, Peng Y, Liu J, Xiao C, et al. Tertiary lymphoid structures: A potential biomarker for anti-cancer therapy. Cancers (Basel). (2022) 14. doi: 10.3390/cancers14235968
146. Liu C and Cao J. The pivotal role of tertiary lymphoid structures in the tumor immune microenvironment. Front Oncol. (2025) 15:1616904. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2025.1616904
147. Helmink BA, Reddy SM, Gao J, Zhang S, Basar R, Thakur R, et al. B cells and tertiary lymphoid structures promote immunotherapy response. Nature. (2020) 577:549–55. doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1922-8
148. Lin Z, Huang L, Li S, Gu J, Cui X, and and Zhou Y. Pan-cancer analysis of genomic properties and clinical outcome associated with tumor tertiary lymphoid structure. Sci Rep. (2020) 10:21530. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-78560-3
149. Suzuki H, Hamada K, Hamanishi J, Ueda A, Murakami R, Taki M, et al. Artificial intelligence-based spatial analysis of tertiary lymphoid structures and clinical significance for endometrial cancer. Cancer Immunol Immunother. (2025) 74:84. doi: 10.1007/s00262-024-03929-6
150. Church DN, Stelloo E, Nout RA, Valtcheva N, Depreeuw J, ter Haar N, et al. Prognostic significance of POLE proofreading mutations in endometrial cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. (2015) 107:402. doi: 10.1093/jnci/dju402
151. Church DN, Briggs SE, Palles C, Domingo E, Kearsey SJ, Grimes JM, et al. DNA polymerase ϵ and δ exonuclease domain mutations in endometrial cancer. Hum Mol Genet. (2013) 22:2820–8. doi: 10.1093/hmg/ddt131
152. León-Castillo A, Britton H, McConechy MK, McAlpine JN, Nout R, Kommoss S, et al. Interpretation of somatic POLE mutations in endometrial carcinoma. J Pathol. (2020) 250:323–35. doi: 10.1002/path.5372
153. Kögl J, Pan TL, Marth C, and and Zeimet AG. The game-changing impact of POLE mutations in oncology-a review from a gynecologic oncology perspective. Front Oncol. (2024) 14:1369189. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2024.1369189
154. van Gool IC, Eggink FA, Freeman-Mills L, Stelloo E, Marchi E, de Bruyn M, et al. POLE proofreading mutations elicit an antitumor immune response in endometrial cancer. Clin Cancer Res. (2015) 21:3347–55. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-15-0057
155. Wang T, Yu D, Wang J, Zhu N, Tang XB, Chen X, et al. Immune signatures of the POLE mutation in endometrial carcinomas: a systematic study based on TCGA data and clinical cohort validation. Front Oncol. (2023) 13:1250558. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1250558
156. Backes FJ, Haag J, Cosgrove CM, Suarez A, Cohn DE, and and Goodfellow PJ. Mismatch repair deficiency identifies patients with high-intermediate-risk (HIR) endometrioid endometrial cancer at the highest risk of recurrence: A prognostic biomarker. Cancer. (2019) 125:398–405. doi: 10.1002/cncr.31901
157. Rousset-Rouviere S, Rochigneux P, Chrétien AS, Fattori S, Gorvel L, Provansal M, et al. Endometrial carcinoma: immune microenvironment and emerging treatments in immuno-oncology. Biomedicines. (2021) 9. doi: 10.3390/biomedicines9060632
158. Riedinger CJ, Esnakula A, Haight PJ, Suarez AA, Chen W, Gillespie J, et al. Characterization of mismatch-repair/microsatellite instability-discordant endometrial cancers. Cancer. (2024) 130:385–99. doi: 10.1002/cncr.35030
159. Hwang HS, Kim D, and Choi J. Distinct mutational profile and immune microenvironment in microsatellite-unstable and POLE-mutated tumors. J Immunother Cancer. (2021) 9. doi: 10.1136/jitc-2021-002797
160. Haradhvala NJ, Kim J, Maruvka YE, Polak P, Rosebrock D, Livitz D, et al. Distinct mutational signatures characterize concurrent loss of polymerase proofreading and mismatch repair. Nat Commun. (2018) 9:1746. doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-04002-4
161. Vogelstein B, Lane D, and Levine AJ. Surfing the p53 network. Nature. (2000) 408:307–10. doi: 10.1038/35042675
162. Wang C, Tan JYM, Chitkara N, and and Bhatt S. TP53 mutation-mediated immune evasion in cancer: mechanisms and therapeutic implications. Cancers (Basel). (2024) 16. doi: 10.3390/cancers16173069
163. Schultheis AM, Martelotto LG, De Filippo MR, Piscuglio S, Ng CK, Hussein YR, et al. TP53 mutational spectrum in endometrioid and serous endometrial cancers. Int J Gynecol Pathol. (2016) 35:289–300. doi: 10.1097/PGP.0000000000000243
164. Yang HP, Meeker A, Guido R, Gunter MJ, Huang GS, Luhn P, et al. PTEN expression in benign human endometrial tissue and cancer in relation to endometrial cancer risk factors. Cancer Causes Control. (2015) 26:1729–36. doi: 10.1007/s10552-015-0666-5
165. Monte NM, Webster KA, Neuberg D, Dressler GR, and and Mutter GL. Joint loss of PAX2 and PTEN expression in endometrial precancers and cancer. Cancer Res. (2010) 70:6225–32. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-10-0149
166. Kim TH, Wang J, Lee KY, Franco HL, Broaddus RR, Lydon JP, et al. The synergistic effect of conditional pten loss and oncogenic K-ras mutation on endometrial cancer development occurs via decreased progesterone receptor action. J Oncol 2010. (2010) p:139087. doi: 10.1155/2010/139087
167. Doll A, Abal M, Rigau M, Monge M, Gonzalez M, Demajo S, et al. Novel molecular profiles of endometrial cancer—new light through old windows. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. (2008) 108:221–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jsbmb.2007.09.020
168. Glaviano A, Foo ASC, Lam HY, Yap KCH, Jacot W, Jones RH, et al. PI3K/AKT/mTOR signaling transduction pathway and targeted therapies in cancer. Mol Cancer. (2023) 22:138. doi: 10.1186/s12943-023-01827-6
169. Fusco N, Sajjadi E, Venetis K, Gaudioso G, Lopez G, Corti C, et al. PTEN alterations and their role in cancer management: are we making headway on precision medicine? Genes (Basel). (2020) 11. doi: 10.3390/genes11070719
170. Vidotto T, Melo CM, Castelli E, Koti M, Dos Reis RB, and and Squire JA. Emerging role of PTEN loss in evasion of the immune response to tumours. Br J Cancer. (2020) 122:1732–43. doi: 10.1038/s41416-020-0834-6
171. Vidotto T, Melo CM, Lautert-Dutra W, Chaves LP, Reis RB, and and Squire JA. Pan-cancer genomic analysis shows hemizygous PTEN loss tumors are associated with immune evasion and poor outcome. Sci Rep. (2023) 13:5049. doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-31759-6
172. Sasaki H, Nishii H, Takahashi H, Tada A, Furusato M, Terashima Y, et al. Mutation of the Ki-ras protooncogene in human endometrial hyperplasia and carcinoma. Cancer Res. (1993) 53:1906–10.
173. Sideris M, Emin EI, Abdullah Z, Hanrahan J, Stefatou KM, Sevas V, et al. The role of KRAS in endometrial cancer: A mini-review. Anticancer Res. (2019) 39:533–9. doi: 10.21873/anticanres.13145
174. Yu K and Wang Y. The advance and correlation of KRAS mutation with the fertility-preservation treatment of endometrial cancer in the background of molecular classification application. Pathol Oncol Res. (2021) 27:1609906. doi: 10.3389/pore.2021.1609906
175. Uniyal P, Kashyap VK, Behl T, Parashar D, and and Rawat R. KRAS mutations in cancer: understanding signaling pathways to immune regulation and the potential of immunotherapy. Cancers. (2025) 17:785. doi: 10.3390/cancers17050785
176. Tyrakis PA, Kampjut D, Steele GF, Lindström HJG, Chirnomas D, Hopkins BD, et al. Multi-node inhibition targeting mTORC1, mTORC2 and PI3Kα potently inhibits the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway in endometrial and breast cancer models. Br J Cancer. (2025) 133:144–54. doi: 10.1038/s41416-025-03035-z
177. Hoxhaj G and Manning BD. The PI3K-AKT network at the interface of oncogenic signalling and cancer metabolism. Nat Rev Cancer. (2020) 20:74–88. doi: 10.1038/s41568-019-0216-7
178. Slomovitz BM and Coleman RL. The PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway as a therapeutic target in endometrial cancer. Clin Cancer Res. (2012) 18:5856–64. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-12-0662
179. Sai J, Owens P, Novitskiy SV, Hawkins OE, Vilgelm AE, Yang J, et al. PI3K inhibition reduces mammary tumor growth and facilitates antitumor immunity and anti-PD1 responses. Clin Cancer Res. (2017) 23:3371–84. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-16-2142
180. Chen Y, Jiang L, Zhang L, Chi H, and and Wang Q. Immune microenvironment and molecular mechanisms in endometrial cancer: implications for resistance and innovative treatments. Discov Oncol. (2025) 16:532. doi: 10.1007/s12672-025-02169-z
181. Nasioudis D, Fernandez ML, Wong N, and Powell Jr DJ. The spectrum of MAPK-ERK pathway genomic alterations in gynecologic Malignancies: Opportunities for novel therapeutic approaches. Gynecol Oncol. (2023) 177:86–94. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2023.08.007
182. Ebert PJR, Cheung J, Yang Y, McNamara E, Hong R, Moskalenko M, et al. MAP kinase inhibition promotes T cell and anti-tumor activity in combination with PD-L1 checkpoint blockade. Immunity. (2016) 44:609–21. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2016.01.024
183. Boni A, Cogdill AP, Dang P, Udayakumar D, Njauw CN, Sloss CM, et al. Selective BRAFV600E inhibition enhances T-cell recognition of melanoma without affecting lymphocyte function. Cancer Res. (2010) 70:5213–9. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-10-0118
184. Burotto M, Chiou VL, Lee JM, and and Kohn EC. The MAPK pathway across different Malignancies: a new perspective. Cancer. (2014) 120:3446–56. doi: 10.1002/cncr.28864
185. Mao H, Zhao X, and Sun S-C. NF-κB in inflammation and cancer. Cell Mol Immunol. (2025) 22:811–39. doi: 10.1038/s41423-025-01310-w
186. Wu Z, Hu Z, Li Q, Liu G, Oaknin A, Grau Bejar JF, et al. Molecular and clinical insights into early-onset endometrial cancer. Trends Cancer. (2025) 11:503–19. doi: 10.1016/j.trecan.2025.03.002
187. Orzołek I, Sobieraj J, and Domagała-Kulawik J. Estrogens, cancer and immunity. Cancers (Basel). (2022) 14. doi: 10.3390/cancers14092265
188. Keselman A, Fang X, White PB, and and Heller NM. Estrogen signaling contributes to sex differences in macrophage polarization during asthma. J Immunol. (2017) 199:1573–83. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1601975
189. Koppenol WH, Bounds PL, and Dang CV. Otto Warburg’s contributions to current concepts of cancer metabolism. Nat Rev Cancer. (2011) 11:325–37. doi: 10.1038/nrc3038
190. Vaupel P, Schmidberger H, and Mayer A. The Warburg effect: essential part of metabolic reprogramming and central contributor to cancer progression. Int J Radiat Biol. (2019) 95:912–9. doi: 10.1080/09553002.2019.1589653
191. Vaupel P, Schmidberger H, and and Mayer A. Lactate modulation of immune responses in inflammatory versus tumour microenvironments. Nat Rev Immunol. (2021) 21:151–61. doi: 10.1038/s41577-020-0406-2
192. Macintyre AN, Gerriets VA, Nichols AG, Michalek RD, Rudolph MC, Deoliveira D, et al. The glucose transporter Glut1 is selectively essential for CD4 T cell activation and effector function. Cell Metab. (2014) 20:61–72. doi: 10.1016/j.cmet.2014.05.004
193. Angelin A, Gil-de-Gómez L, Dahiya S, Jiao J, Guo L, Levine MH, et al. Foxp3 reprograms T cell metabolism to function in low-glucose, high-lactate environments. Cell Metab. (2017) 25:1282–1293.e7. doi: 10.1016/j.cmet.2016.12.018
194. Shi LZ, Wang R, Huang G, Vogel P, Neale G, Green DR, et al. HIF1alpha-dependent glycolytic pathway orchestrates a metabolic checkpoint for the differentiation of TH17 and Treg cells. J Exp Med. (2011) 208:1367–76. doi: 10.1084/jem.20110278
195. Cong J, Wang X, Zheng X, Wang D, Fu B, Sun R, et al. Dysfunction of natural killer cells by FBP1-induced inhibition of glycolysis during lung cancer progression. Cell Metab. (2018) 28:243–255.e5. doi: 10.1016/j.cmet.2018.06.021
196. Batista-Gonzalez A, Vidal R, Criollo A, and and Carreño LJ. New insights on the role of lipid metabolism in the metabolic reprogramming of macrophages. Front Immunol. (2019) 10:2993. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2019.02993
197. Mills EL and O’Neill LA. Reprogramming mitochondrial metabolism in macrophages as an anti-inflammatory signal. Eur J Immunol. (2016) 46:13–21. doi: 10.1002/eji.201445427
198. Chuang YM, Tzeng SF, Ho PC, and and Tsai CH. Immunosurveillance encounters cancer metabolism. EMBO Rep. (2024) 25:471–88. doi: 10.1038/s44319-023-00038-w
199. Klysz D, Tai X, Robert PA, Craveiro M, Cretenet G, Oburoglu L, et al. Glutamine-dependent α-ketoglutarate production regulates the balance between T helper 1 cell and regulatory T cell generation. Sci Signal. (2015) 8:ra97. doi: 10.1126/scisignal.aab2610
200. Crump NT, Hadjinicolaou AV, Xia M, Walsby-Tickle J, Gileadi U, Chen JL, et al. Chromatin accessibility governs the differential response of cancer and T cells to arginine starvation. Cell Rep. (2021) 35:109101. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2021.109101
201. Loftus RM, Assmann N, Kedia-Mehta N, O'Brien KL, Garcia A, Gillespie C, et al. Amino acid-dependent cMyc expression is essential for NK cell metabolic and functional responses in mice. Nat Commun. (2018) 9:2341. doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-04719-2
202. Mondanelli G, Iacono A, Allegrucci M, Puccetti P, and and Grohmann U. Immunoregulatory interplay between arginine and tryptophan metabolism in health and disease. Front Immunol. (2019) 10:1565. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2019.01565
203. Wu B, Zhang B, Li B, Wu H, and and Jiang M. Cold and hot tumors: from molecular mechanisms to targeted therapy. Signal Transduct Target Ther. (2024) 9:274. doi: 10.1038/s41392-024-01979-x
204. Kumagai S, Togashi Y, Sakai C, Kawazoe A, Kawazu M, Ueno T, et al. An oncogenic alteration creates a microenvironment that promotes tumor progression by conferring a metabolic advantage to regulatory T cells. Immunity. (2020) 53:187–203.e8. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2020.06.016
205. Cubillos-Ruiz JR, Silberman PC, Rutkowski MR, Chopra S, Perales-Puchalt A, Song M, et al. ER stress sensor XBP1 controls anti-tumor immunity by disrupting dendritic cell homeostasis. Cell. (2015) 161:1527–38. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2015.05.025
206. Zhu D, Zeng S, Su C, Li J, Xuan Y, Lin Y, et al. The interaction between DNA methylation and tumor immune microenvironment: from the laboratory to clinical applications. Clin Epigenet. (2024) 16:24. doi: 10.1186/s13148-024-01633-x
207. Vaidya H, Jelinek J, and Issa JJ. DNA methylation, aging, and cancer. Epigenomes. (2025) 9. doi: 10.3390/epigenomes9020018
208. Wang H, Jiang Y, Jin H, and and Wang C. ERBB2 promoter demethylation and immune cell infiltration promote a poor prognosis for cancer patients. Front Oncol. (2022) 12:1012138. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2022.1012138
209. Choi JY, Seok HJ, Lee DH, Lee E, Kim TJ, Bae S, et al. Tumor-derived miR-6794-5p enhances cancer growth by promoting M2 macrophage polarization. Cell Commun Signal. (2024) 22:190. doi: 10.1186/s12964-024-01570-5
210. Naqvi A, MacKintosh ML, Derbyshire AE, Tsakiroglou AM, Walker TDJ, McVey RJ, et al. The impact of obesity and bariatric surgery on the immune microenvironment of the endometrium. Int J Obes (Lond). (2022) 46:605–12. doi: 10.1038/s41366-021-01027-6
211. Moukarzel LA, Ferrando L, Stylianou A, Lobaugh S, Wu M, Nobre SP, et al. Impact of obesity and white adipose tissue inflammation on the omental microenvironment in endometrial cancer. Cancer. (2022) 128:3297–309. doi: 10.1002/cncr.34356
212. Jacques E, van den Bosch A, de Vos van Steenwijk P, Kooreman L, Delvoux B, Romano A, et al. Pilot data suggest that obesity and presence of Malignancy are associated with altered immune cell infiltration in endometrial biopsies. J Clin Med. (2024) 13. doi: 10.3390/jcm13237248
213. Schmidt A, Oberle N, and Krammer PH. Molecular mechanisms of treg-mediated T cell suppression. Front Immunol. (2012) 3:51. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2012.00051
214. Saravia J and Chi H. Immunometabolism of regulatory T cells in cancer. Oncogene. (2025) 44:2011–24. doi: 10.1038/s41388-025-03458-1
215. Kübler K, Ayub TH, Weber SK, Zivanovic O, Abramian A, Keyver-Paik M-D, et al. Prognostic significance of tumor-associated macrophages in endometrial adenocarcinoma. Gynecologic Oncol. (2014) 135:176–83. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.08.028
216. Saeed AF. Tumor-associated macrophages: polarization, immunoregulation, and immunotherapy. Cells. (2025) 14. doi: 10.3390/cells14100741
217. Kzhyshkowska J, Shen J, and Larionova I. Targeting of TAMs: can we be more clever than cancer cells? Cell Mol Immunol. (2024) 21:1376–409. doi: 10.1038/s41423-024-01232-z
218. Mandal G, Biswas S, Anadon CM, Yu X, Gatenbee CD, Prabhakaran S, et al. IgA-dominated humoral immune responses govern patients’ Outcome in endometrial cancer. Cancer Res. (2022) 82:859–71. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-21-2376
219. Yu Z, Zhang J, Zhang Q, Wei S, Shi R, Zhao R, et al. Single-cell sequencing reveals the heterogeneity and intratumoral crosstalk in human endometrial cancer. Cell Prolif. (2022) 55:e13249. doi: 10.1111/cpr.13249
220. Yu X, Xie L, Ge J, Li H, Zhong S, and and Liu X. Integrating single-cell RNA-seq and spatial transcriptomics reveals MDK-NCL dependent immunosuppressive environment in endometrial carcinoma. Front Immunol. (2023) 14:1145300. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1145300
221. Xiang X, Wang J, Lu D, and and Xu X. Targeting tumor-associated macrophages to synergize tumor immunotherapy. Signal Transduct Target Ther. (2021) 6:75. doi: 10.1038/s41392-021-00484-9
222. Prakash J and Shaked Y. The interplay between extracellular matrix remodeling and cancer therapeutics. Cancer Discov. (2024) 14:1375–88. doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-24-0002
223. Bouras E, Karhunen V, Gill D, Huang J, Haycock PC, Gunter MJ, et al. Circulating inflammatory cytokines and risk of five cancers: a Mendelian randomization analysis. BMC Med. (2022) 20:3. doi: 10.1186/s12916-021-02193-0
224. Kidane D, Chae WJ, Czochor J, Eckert KA, Glazer PM, Bothwell AL, et al. Interplay between DNA repair and inflammation, and the link to cancer. Crit Rev Biochem Mol Biol. (2014) 49:116–39. doi: 10.3109/10409238.2013.875514
225. Kawanishi S, Ohnishi S, Ma N, Hiraku Y, and and Murata M. Crosstalk between DNA damage and inflammation in the multiple steps of carcinogenesis. Int J Mol Sci. (2017) 18. doi: 10.3390/ijms18081808
226. Sobstyl M, Brecht P, Sobstyl A, Mertowska P, and and Grywalska E. The role of microbiota in the immunopathogenesis of endometrial cancer. Int J Mol Sci. (2022) 23. doi: 10.3390/ijms23105756
227. Łaniewski P, Ilhan ZE, and Herbst-Kralovetz MM. The microbiome and gynaecological cancer development, prevention and therapy. Nat Rev Urol. (2020) 17:232–50. doi: 10.1038/s41585-020-0286-z
228. Dossus L, Lukanova A, Rinaldi S, Allen N, Cust AE, Becker S, et al. Hormonal, metabolic, and inflammatory profiles and endometrial cancer risk within the EPIC cohort--a factor analysis. Am J Epidemiol. (2013) 177:787–99. doi: 10.1093/aje/kws309
229. Dossus L, Rinaldi S, Becker S, Lukanova A, Tjonneland A, Olsen A, et al. Obesity, inflammatory markers, and endometrial cancer risk: a prospective case-control study. Endocr Relat Cancer. (2010) 17:1007–19. doi: 10.1677/ERC-10-0053
230. Tan Z, Sheng B, Chen L, Dong H, Deng Y, Li Y, et al. Inflammation-driven mechanisms in endometrial cancer: pathways from inflammatory microenvironment remodeling to immune escape. Front Immunol. (2025) 16:1689114. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2025.1689114
Keywords: carcinogenesis, endometrial cancer (EC), endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia (EIN), molecule subtypes, tumor immune microenvironment
Citation: Peng Y, Zhong G, Zhou M, Yao Y, Dong K, Yang Z, An L, Zhang J, Zhang J, Zhang S, Tang Q and Wang H (2026) The dysregulation of the immune microenvironment during endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia serves as a marker of endometrial carcinogenesis. Front. Immunol. 17:1749138. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2026.1749138
Received: 18 November 2025; Accepted: 12 January 2026; Revised: 25 December 2025;
Published: 02 February 2026.
Edited by:
Khashayarsha Khazaie, Mayo Clinic Arizona, United StatesReviewed by:
Liubov A. Tashireva, Tomsk Cancer Research Institute (RAS), RussiaMatthew Stephen Block, Mayo Clinic, United States
Copyright © 2026 Peng, Zhong, Zhou, Yao, Dong, Yang, An, Zhang, Zhang, Zhang, Tang and Wang. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Qianqian Tang, dHFxNzE3MjAyMkAxNjMuY29t; Hongbo Wang, ZHJ3YW5naGI2OUBodXN0LmVkdS5jbg==
†These authors have contributed equally to this work