Hoang Lien N, Kinloch Mary A, Leo Joyce M, Grondin Katherine, Lee Cheng-Han, Ewanowich Carol, Köbel Martin, Cheng Angela, Talhouk Aline, McConechy Melissa, Huntsman David G, McAlpine Jessica N, Soslow Robert A, Gilks C Blake
*Department of Pathology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY †Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, and Genetic Pathology Evaluation Center, Vancouver General Hospital, University of British Columbia **Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC ‡Department of Pathology, Saskatoon City Hospital, Saskatoon, SK §Department of Pathology, Laval University, Quebec City #Department of Human Genetics, McGill University, Research Institute of the McGill University Health Network, Montreal, QC ∥Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Royal Alexandra Hospital, University of Alberta, Edmonton ¶Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Calgary Laboratory Services, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Am J Surg Pathol. 2017 Feb;41(2):245-252. doi: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000000764.
The Cancer Genome Atlas recently identified a genomic-based molecular classification of endometrial carcinomas, with 4 molecular categories: (1) ultramutated (polymerase epsilon [POLE] mutated), (2) hypermutated (microsatellite instability), (3) copy number abnormalities-low, and (4) copy number abnormalities-high. Two studies have since proposed models to classify endometrial carcinomas into 4 molecular subgroups, modeled after The Cancer Genome Atlas, using simplified and more clinically applicable surrogate methodologies. In our study, 151 endometrial carcinomas were molecularly categorized using sequencing for the exonuclease domain mutations (EDM) of POLE, and immunohistochemistry for p53 and mismatch repair (MMR) proteins. This separated cases into 1 of 4 groups: (1) POLE EDM, (2) MMR-D, (3) p53 wildtype (p53 wt), or (4) p53 abnormal (p53 abn). Seven gynecologic pathologists were asked to assign each case to one of the following categories: grade 1 to 2 endometrioid carcinoma (EC), grade 3 EC, mucinous, serous carcinoma (SC), clear cell, dedifferentiated, carcinosarcoma, mixed, and other. Consensus diagnosis among all 7 pathologists was highest in the p53 wt group (37/41, 90%), lowest in the p53 abn group (14/36, 39%), and intermediate in the POLE EDM (22/34, 65%) and MMR-D groups (23/40, 58%). Although the majority of p53 wt endometrial carcinomas are grade 1 to 2 EC (sensitivity: 90%), fewer than half of grade 1 to 2 EC fell into the p53 wt category (positive predictive value: 42%). Pure SC almost always resided in the p53 abn group (positive predictive value: 96%), but it was insensitive as a marker of p53 abn (sensitivity 64%) and the reproducibility of diagnosing SC was suboptimal. The limitations in the precise histologic classification of endometrial carcinomas highlights the importance of an ancillary molecular-based classification scheme.
癌症基因组图谱(The Cancer Genome Atlas)最近确定了子宫内膜癌基于基因组的分子分类,包括4种分子类别:(1)超突变型(聚合酶ε[POLE]突变型),(2)高突变型(微卫星不稳定性),(3)低拷贝数异常型,以及(4)高拷贝数异常型。此后,两项研究提出了模型,以《癌症基因组图谱》为蓝本,使用简化且更具临床适用性的替代方法,将子宫内膜癌分为4个分子亚组。在我们的研究中,151例子宫内膜癌通过对POLE的核酸外切酶结构域突变(EDM)进行测序以及对p53和错配修复(MMR)蛋白进行免疫组织化学分析进行分子分类。这将病例分为4组中的1组:(1)POLE EDM,(2)MMR-D,(3)p53野生型(p53 wt),或(4)p53异常型(p53 abn)。7名妇科病理学家被要求将每个病例归为以下类别之一:1至2级子宫内膜样癌(EC)、3级EC、黏液性癌、浆液性癌(SC)、透明细胞癌、去分化癌、癌肉瘤、混合型和其他类型。所有7名病理学家之间的共识诊断在p53 wt组中最高(37/41,90%),在p53 abn组中最低(14/36,39%),在POLE EDM组(22/34,65%)和MMR-D组(23/40,58%)中处于中间水平。虽然大多数p53 wt子宫内膜癌为1至2级EC(敏感性:90%),但1至2级EC中只有不到一半属于p53 wt类别(阳性预测值:42%)。纯SC几乎总是位于p53 abn组(阳性预测值:96%),但作为p53 abn的标志物它并不敏感(敏感性64%),且诊断SC的可重复性欠佳。子宫内膜癌精确组织学分类的局限性凸显了基于辅助分子的分类方案的重要性。