Specific Pathology Features Enrich Selection of Endometrial Carcinomas for POLE Testing.

Kianoosh Keyhanian, Lucy Han, Brooke E Howitt, Teri Longacre
{"title":"Specific Pathology Features Enrich Selection of Endometrial Carcinomas for POLE Testing.","authors":"Kianoosh Keyhanian, Lucy Han, Brooke E Howitt, Teri Longacre","doi":"10.1097/pas.0000000000002165","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Identification of ultramutated/POLE-mutated endometrial carcinomas (POLEM ECs) has important implications given its association with better prognosis. However, POLE mutation testing is not widely available. Our objective was to evaluate POLEM ECs versus POLE wild-type (POLEWT) ECs, within a cohort of consultation cases with features suggestive of an ultramutated phenotype. Consultation cases of EC that had undergone POLE hotspot mutation testing over a 3.5-year period were included. Tumor morphology and immunohistochemistry were reviewed for both groups. Chi-square test and t test were used for statistical analysis. Of 25 consultation cases, 12 harbored a POLE mutation (48%) and 13 were wild-type (52%). Patients with POLEM ECs were younger (59 vs. 71.3 y; P=0.01). Ambiguous histomorphology (5/12 vs. 1/13; P=0.04) and the presence of more than rare bizarre nuclei (8/12 vs. 2/12; P=0.01) differed significantly between POLEM and POLEWT ECs, respectively. In the POLEM group, one case (1/12) demonstrated PMS2 loss, and one (1/12) showed subclonal MLH1/PMS2 loss. Among POLEWT ECs, 3/13 (23%) showed MLH1/PMS2 loss. p53 was subclonally overexpressed in 4/10 POLEM and 1/13 POLEWT cases (P=0.06). Mutant p53 patterns were seen in 1/10 POLEM versus 6/13 of POLEWT ECs, respectively (P=0.06). Within our cohort, the specificity of ambiguous histomorphology, bizarre nuclei, subclonal biomarker expression, and marked tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes for POLEM EC was 83%, 80%, 80%, and 71%, respectively. Where universal POLE testing is not available, these data suggest that morphologic screening (particularly ambiguous histomorphology and the presence of more than rare bizarre nuclei) can be useful for selective enrichment of ECs for POLE testing.","PeriodicalId":501610,"journal":{"name":"The American Journal of Surgical Pathology","volume":"29 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The American Journal of Surgical Pathology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/pas.0000000000002165","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Identification of ultramutated/POLE-mutated endometrial carcinomas (POLEM ECs) has important implications given its association with better prognosis. However, POLE mutation testing is not widely available. Our objective was to evaluate POLEM ECs versus POLE wild-type (POLEWT) ECs, within a cohort of consultation cases with features suggestive of an ultramutated phenotype. Consultation cases of EC that had undergone POLE hotspot mutation testing over a 3.5-year period were included. Tumor morphology and immunohistochemistry were reviewed for both groups. Chi-square test and t test were used for statistical analysis. Of 25 consultation cases, 12 harbored a POLE mutation (48%) and 13 were wild-type (52%). Patients with POLEM ECs were younger (59 vs. 71.3 y; P=0.01). Ambiguous histomorphology (5/12 vs. 1/13; P=0.04) and the presence of more than rare bizarre nuclei (8/12 vs. 2/12; P=0.01) differed significantly between POLEM and POLEWT ECs, respectively. In the POLEM group, one case (1/12) demonstrated PMS2 loss, and one (1/12) showed subclonal MLH1/PMS2 loss. Among POLEWT ECs, 3/13 (23%) showed MLH1/PMS2 loss. p53 was subclonally overexpressed in 4/10 POLEM and 1/13 POLEWT cases (P=0.06). Mutant p53 patterns were seen in 1/10 POLEM versus 6/13 of POLEWT ECs, respectively (P=0.06). Within our cohort, the specificity of ambiguous histomorphology, bizarre nuclei, subclonal biomarker expression, and marked tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes for POLEM EC was 83%, 80%, 80%, and 71%, respectively. Where universal POLE testing is not available, these data suggest that morphologic screening (particularly ambiguous histomorphology and the presence of more than rare bizarre nuclei) can be useful for selective enrichment of ECs for POLE testing.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
特定病理特征有助于选择子宫内膜癌进行 POLE 检测。
鉴于超突变/POLE突变子宫内膜癌(POLEM ECs)与较好的预后有关,因此识别超突变/POLE突变子宫内膜癌(POLEM ECs)具有重要意义。然而,POLE突变检测尚未普及。我们的目的是在一组具有提示超突变表型特征的会诊病例中,评估POLEM EC与POLE野生型(POLEWT)EC的差异。该研究纳入了在3年半时间内接受过POLE热点突变检测的EC会诊病例。对两组病例的肿瘤形态学和免疫组化进行复查。采用卡方检验和 t 检验进行统计分析。在25例会诊病例中,12例携带POLE突变(48%),13例为野生型(52%)。POLEM ECs患者更年轻(59岁对71.3岁;P=0.01)。组织形态不明确(5/12 对 1/13;P=0.04)和存在超过罕见的奇异细胞核(8/12 对 2/12;P=0.01)在 POLEM 和 POLEWT ECs 之间分别存在显著差异。在POLEM组中,1例(1/12)显示PMS2缺失,1例(1/12)显示亚克隆MLH1/PMS2缺失。4/10 例 POLEM 和 1/13 例 POLEWT 患者的 p53 亚克隆过表达(P=0.06)。在 1/10 例 POLEM 和 6/13 例 POLEWT EC 中分别出现了突变的 p53 模式(P=0.06)。在我们的队列中,组织形态不清、奇异细胞核、亚克隆生物标志物表达和明显的肿瘤浸润淋巴细胞对 POLEM EC 的特异性分别为 83%、80%、80% 和 71%。这些数据表明,在无法进行普遍POLE检测的情况下,形态学筛查(尤其是组织形态不明确和存在超过罕见的奇异细胞核)可用于选择性地富集EC进行POLE检测。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Odontogenic Myxomas Harbor Recurrent Copy Number Alterations and a Distinct Methylation Signature. Characteristics and Clinical Value of MYC, BCL2, and BCL6 Rearrangement Detected by Next-generation Sequencing in DLBCL. Intra-ampullary Papillary Tubular Neoplasm (IAPN): Clinicopathologic Analysis of 72 Cases Highlights the Distinctive Characteristics of a Poorly Recognized Entity. PON3::LCN1 and HTN3::MSANTD3 Gene Fusions With NR4A3/NR4A2 Expression in Salivary Acinic Cell Carcinoma. Yolk Sac Differentiation in Endometrial Carcinoma: Incidence and Clinicopathologic Features of Somatically Derived Yolk Sac Tumors Versus Carcinomas With Nonspecific Immunoexpression of Yolk Sac Markers.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1