Wada Tomoko, Ohishi Yoshihiro, Kaku Tsunehisa, Aman Murasaki, Imamura Hiroko, Yasutake Nobuko, Sonoda Kenzo, Kato Kiyoko, Oda Yoshinao
Departments of *Anatomic Pathology ‡Gynecology and Obstetrics, Graduate School of Medical Sciences †Health Sciences, Division of Maternal Health, School of Medicine, Kyushu University, Higashi-ku, Fukuoka, Japan.
Am J Surg Pathol. 2017 May;41(5):696-705. doi: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000000833.
The fourth edition of the World Health Organization classification set up new entities of endocervical adenocarcinoma (ECA), namely the "usual type" and "gastric type." These 2 types are considered to be distinct histogenetically because of their differing immunophenotypes, human papillomavirus (HPV) status, and prognoses. Usual-type ECAs (U-ECAs) are virtually always associated with high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) infection. Gastric-type ECAs (G-ECAs) are believed not to be associated with HR-HPV infection. Morphologically, U-ECA cells are characterized by mucin-poor and eosinophilic cytoplasm, resembling endometrioid carcinoma (a pseudoendometrioid feature). G-ECA cells are characterized by abundant clear or pale, mucinous cytoplasm and distinct cell borders. However, in routine practice we noticed that some ECAs contain morphologically usual type-like components and gastric type-like components in a single tumor; we have named these "G+U" ECAs. The histogenesis of such tumors has not been investigated. We conducted the present study to clarify the clinicopathologic and immunohistochemical features and HPV status of G+U ECAs, and to determine whether G+U ECAs are genuine G-ECAs mimicking U-ECAs or genuine U-ECAs with gastric type-like morphology. We retrospectively analyzed a series of 70 consecutive cases of ECA diagnosed as mucinous ECA, endocervical type, and we reclassified them on the basis of the latest World Health Organization classification. We identified 48 (69%) pure U-ECAs, 9 pure G-ECAs, and 13 G+U ECAs. Ten of the 13 G+U ECAs (77%) showed no HR-HPV infection by in situ hybridization (HPV-unrelated G+U ECAs) and showed frequent HIK1083 expression and aberrant p53 expression in both usual type-like and gastric type-like components. The other 3 G+U ECAs showed HR-HPV infection (HPV-related G+U EACs) and frequent p16+/p53-/HIK1083- immunophenotype in both usual type-like and gastric type-like components. The U-ECAs were characterized by HR-HPV infection detected by in situ hybridization and frequent p16+/p53-/HIK1083- immunophenotype, similar to that of the HPV-related G+U ECAs. In contrast, the pure G-ECAs were characterized by the absence of HPV infection and frequent HIK1083 expression and aberrant p53 expression, similar to that of HPV-unrelated G+U ECAs. G+U ECAs thus represent a heterogenous group composed of genuine G-ECAs and genuine U-ECAs. Most of the G+U ECAs we examined were genuine HPV-unrelated G-ECAs with usual type-like components showing mucin-poor, eosinophilic cytoplasm (pseudoendometrioid morphology). A small population of G+U ECAs was genuine HPV-related U-ECAs with gastric type-like components showing mucin-rich, voluminous cytoplasm. Thus, both types of ECAs can occasionally display patterns of differentiation suggesting a component of the other type but true mixed tumors do not appear to exist. Ancillary techniques (immunohistochemical analysis of p16, p53, and HPV DNA detection assays) should be used to assure proper classification of tumors with mixed morphologic features.
世界卫生组织第四版分类设立了宫颈内膜腺癌(ECA)的新实体,即“普通型”和“胃型”。由于这两种类型的免疫表型、人乳头瘤病毒(HPV)状态及预后不同,在组织发生学上被认为是不同的。普通型ECA(U-ECA)几乎总是与高危型人乳头瘤病毒(HR-HPV)感染相关。胃型ECA(G-ECA)被认为与HR-HPV感染无关。形态学上,U-ECA细胞的特征是黏液少且嗜酸性的细胞质,类似于子宫内膜样癌(假子宫内膜样特征)。G-ECA细胞的特征是有丰富的清亮或淡染的黏液性细胞质及明显的细胞边界。然而,在常规实践中我们注意到,一些ECA在单个肿瘤中含有形态学上类似普通型和胃型的成分;我们将这些称为“G+U”ECA。此类肿瘤的组织发生尚未被研究。我们开展本研究以阐明G+U ECA的临床病理和免疫组化特征及HPV状态,并确定G+U ECA是模仿U-ECA的真正G-ECA还是具有胃型样形态的真正U-ECA。我们回顾性分析了一系列连续70例诊断为黏液性ECA、宫颈内膜型的病例,并根据世界卫生组织最新分类对其重新分类。我们识别出48例(69%)纯U-ECA、9例纯G-ECA和13例G+U ECA。13例G+U ECA中的10例(77%)原位杂交显示无HR-HPV感染(HPV不相关G+U ECA),且在普通型样和胃型样成分中均频繁出现HIK1083表达及p53异常表达。另外3例G+U ECA显示HR-HPV感染(HPV相关G+U EAC),且在普通型样和胃型样成分中均频繁出现p16+/p53-/HIK1083-免疫表型。U-ECA的特征是原位杂交检测到HR-HPV感染及频繁出现p16+/p53-/HIK1083-免疫表型,与HPV相关G+U ECA相似。相反,纯G-ECA的特征是无HPV感染及频繁出现HIK1083表达和p53异常表达,与HPV不相关G+U ECA相似。因此,G+U ECA代表了一个由真正的G-ECA和真正的U-ECA组成的异质性群体。我们检查的大多数G+U ECA是真正的HPV不相关G-ECA,其普通型样成分显示黏液少、嗜酸性的细胞质(假子宫内膜样形态)。一小部分G+U ECA是真正的HPV相关U-ECA,其胃型样成分显示富含黏液、大量的细胞质。因此,两种类型的ECA偶尔都可表现出提示另一类型成分的分化模式,但真正的混合性肿瘤似乎并不存在。应使用辅助技术(p16、p53免疫组化分析及HPV DNA检测试验)来确保对具有混合形态特征的肿瘤进行正确分类。