Lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI) is an important prognostic parameter in endometrial carcinoma (EC) and has gained increasing interest in recent years due to an expanding body of evidence of... Show moreLymphovascular space invasion (LVSI) is an important prognostic parameter in endometrial carcinoma (EC) and has gained increasing interest in recent years due to an expanding body of evidence of its independent prognostic value, especially when the presence of LVSI is quantified. A key strength of LVSI as a prognostic factor is that it can be detected on routine microscopic examination, without ancillary tests, and thus can be used in low-resource settings. A weakness, however, is the lack of uniformly applied criteria for assessment and quantification of LVSI, resulting in interobserver variation in diagnosis. This is confounded by artefacts and other morphological features that may mimic LVSI (commonly referred to as pseudo-LVSI). Despite these issues, multiple studies have shown that LVSI is strongly associated with lymph node (LN) metastasis and is an independent risk factor for LN recurrence and distant metastasis. Consequently, the presence of substantial/extensive LVSI has become an important consideration in formulating adjuvant treatment recommendations in patients with EC, and this has been incorporated in the recent International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2023 staging system. Herein, we review the current literature on LVSI in EC and discuss its role as a prognostic marker, the reproducibility of LVSI assessment and distinction between LVSI and its mimics. We provide illustrations of key diagnostic features and discuss the two-tiered (none/focal versus substantial) system of LVSI classification. This work is intended to provide guidance to practising pathologists and unify the approach towards LVSI assessment in EC. Show less
Kaya, M.; Post, C.C.B.; Tops, C.M.; Nielsen, M.; Crosbie, E.J.; Leary, A.; ... ; Bosse, T. 2024
Universal tumor screening in endometrial carcinoma (EC) is increasingly adopted to identify individuals at risk of Lynch syndrome (LS). These cases involve mismatch repair-deficient (MMRd) EC... Show moreUniversal tumor screening in endometrial carcinoma (EC) is increasingly adopted to identify individuals at risk of Lynch syndrome (LS). These cases involve mismatch repair-deficient (MMRd) EC without MLH1 promoter hypermethylation (PHM). LS is confirmed through the identification of germline MMR pathogenic variants (PV). In cases where these are not detected, emerging evidence highlights the significance of double-somatic MMR gene alterations as a sporadic cause of MMRd, alongside POLE/POLD1 exonuclease domain (EDM) PV leading to secondary MMR PV. Our understanding of the incidence of different MMRd EC origins not related to MLH1-PHM, their associations with clinicopathologic characteristics, and the prognostic implications remains limited. In a combined analysis of the PORTEC-1, -2, and -3 trials (n ¼ 1254), 84 MMRd EC not related to MLH1-PHM were identified that successfully underwent paired tumorenormal tissue nextgeneration sequencing of the MMR and POLE/POLD1 genes. Among these, 37% were LS associated (LS-MMRd EC), 38% were due to double-somatic hits (DS-MMRd EC), and 25% remained unexplained. LS-MMRd EC exhibited higher rates of MSH6 (52% vs 19%) or PMS2 loss (29% vs 3%) than DSMMRd EC, and exclusively showed MMR-deficient gland foci. DS-MMRd EC had higher rates of combined MSH2/MSH6 loss (47% vs 16%), loss of >2 MMR proteins (16% vs 3%), and somatic POLEEDM PV (25% vs 3%) than LS-MMRd EC. Clinicopathologic characteristics, including age at tumor onset and prognosis, did not differ among the various groups. Our study validates the use of paired tumorenormal next-generation sequencing to identify definitive sporadic causes in MMRd EC unrelated to MLH1-PHM. MMR immunohistochemistry and POLE-EDM mutation status can aid in the differentiation between LS-MMRd EC and DS-MMRd EC. Show less
Singh, N.; Piskorz, A.M.; Bosse, T.; Jimenez-Linan, M.; Rous, B.; Brenton, J.D.; ... ; Kobel, M. 2020
TP53 mutations are considered a surrogate biomarker of the serous-like 'copy number high' molecular subtype of endometrial carcinoma (EC). In ovarian carcinoma, p53 immunohistochemistry (IHC)... Show moreTP53 mutations are considered a surrogate biomarker of the serous-like 'copy number high' molecular subtype of endometrial carcinoma (EC). In ovarian carcinoma, p53 immunohistochemistry (IHC) accurately reflects mutational status with almost 100% specificity but its performance in EC has not been established. This study tested whether p53 IHC reliably predicts TP53 mutations identified by next-generation sequencing (NGS) in EC biopsy samples for all ECs and as part of a molecular classification algorithm after exclusion of cases harbouring mismatch repair defects (MMRd) or pathogenic DNA polymerase epsilon exonuclease domain mutations (POLEmut). A secondary aim assessed inter-laboratory variability in p53 IHC. From a total of 207 cases from five centres (37-49 cases per centre), p53 IHC carried out at a central reference laboratory was compared with local IHC (n = 164) and curated tagged-amplicon NGS TP53 sequencing results (n = 177). Following consensus review, local and central p53 IHC results were concordant in 156/164 (95.1%) tumours. Discordant results were attributable to both interpretive and technical differences in staining between the local and central laboratories. When results were considered as any mutant pattern versus wild-type pattern staining, however, there was disagreement between local and central review in only one case. The concordance between p53 IHC and TP53 mutation was 155/168 (92.3%) overall, and 117/123 (95.1%) after excluding MMRd and POLEmut EC. Three (3/6) discordant results were in serous carcinomas with complete absence of p53 staining but no detectable TP53 mutation. Subclonal mutant p53 IHC expression was observed in 9/177 (5.1%) cases, of which four were either MMRd or POLEmut. Mutant pattern p53 IHC was observed in 63/63 (100%) serous carcinomas that were MMR-proficient/POLE exonuclease domain wild-type. Optimised p53 IHC performs well as a surrogate test for TP53 mutation in EC biopsies, demonstrates excellent inter-laboratory reproducibility, and has high clinical utility for molecular classification algorithms in EC. (c) 2019 Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Show less
Histopathological evaluation including subtyping and grading is the current cornerstone for endometrial cancer (EC) classification. This provides clinicians with prognostic information and input... Show moreHistopathological evaluation including subtyping and grading is the current cornerstone for endometrial cancer (EC) classification. This provides clinicians with prognostic information and input for further treatment recommendations. Nonetheless, patients with histologically similar ECs may have very different outcomes, notably in patients with high-grade endometrial carcinomas. For endometrial cancer, four molecular subgroups have undergone extensive studies in recent years:POLEultramutated (POLEmut), mismatch repair-deficient (MMRd), p53 mutant (p53abn) and those EC lacking any of these alterations, referred to as NSMP (non-specific molecular profile). Several large studies confirm the prognostic relevance of these molecular subgroups. However, this 'histomolecular' approach has so far not been implemented in clinical routine. The ongoing PORTEC4a trial is the first clinical setting in which the added value of integrating molecular parameters in adjuvant treatment decisions will be determined. For diagnostics, the incorporation of the molecular parameters in EC classification will add a level of objectivity which will yield biologically more homogeneous subclasses. Here we illustrate how the management of individual EC patients may be impacted when applying the molecular EC classification. We describe our current approach to the integrated diagnoses of EC with a focus on scenarios with conflicting morphological and molecular findings. We also address several pitfalls accompanying the diagnostic implementation of molecular EC classification and give practical suggestions for diagnostic scenarios. Show less
Ryan, N.; Wall, J.; Crosbie, E.J.; Arends, M.; Bosse, T.; Arif, S.; ... ; Singh, N. 2019
