Explore the vast range of titles available.

Over the past decade, our understanding of endometrial cancer has changed dramatically from the two-tiered clinicopathologic classification system of type I and type II endometrial cancer through to the four distinct molecular subtypes identified by The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) in 2013. In both systems there is a small subset of endometrial cancers (serous histotype/high numbers of somatic copy number abnormalities) that account for a disproportionately high percentage of endometrial cancer related deaths. This subset can be identified in routine clinical practice by first identifying the approximately one-third of endometrial cancers that are either ultramutated/POLEmut tumors, with pathogenic mutations in the exonuclease domain of POLE, or hypermutated/MMRd tumors, with loss of DNA mismatch repair. Immunostaining for p53 stratifies the remaining endometrial cancers into those with wild-type staining pattern and those with mutant pattern staining (p53abn endometrial cancer). This latter group of p53abn endometrial cancer is the subject of this review. Most p53abn endometrial cancers are serous type and high grade, but it also includes other histotypes and lower grade tumors, and has consistently been associated with the poorest clinical outcomes. Although it only accounts for 15% of all endometrial cancer cases, it is responsible for 50–70% of endometrial cancer mortality. A better understanding of the molecular alterations in the p53abn subgroup, beyond the ubiquitous and definitional TP53 mutations, is required so we can identify better treatments for these most aggressive endometrial cancers. Recent evidence has shown improved survival outcomes with the addition of chemotherapy compared with radiation alone in p53abn endometrial cancers. Opportunities for targeted therapy for p53abn endometrial cancers also exist with a proportion of p53abn endometrial cancers known to have homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) or human epidermal growth factor 2 (HER2) overexpression/amplification. This review will provide an overview of our current understanding of p53abn endometrial cancer.

Uterine cancer was first subclassified based on anatomic site, separating those tumours arising from the endometrium from cervical cancers. There was then further subclassification of endometrial cancers based on cell type, and this correlated with the Type I and Type II categories identified through the epidemiological studies of Bokhman, with endometrioid carcinoma corresponding (approximately) to Type I and serous carcinoma to Type II. These histotypes are not clearly separable in practice, however, with considerable interobserver variability in histotype diagnosis, especially for high-grade tumours. There followed studies of immunomarkers and then mutational studies of single genes, in attempts to improve subclassification. While these have revealed significant differences in protein expression and mutation profiles between endometrioid and serous carcinomas, there is also considerable overlap, so that there remain challenges in subclassification of endometrial carcinoma. Gene panel testing, using next-generation sequencing, was applied to endometrial cancers and highlighted that there are tumours that show genetic alterations intermediate between classic Type I/endometrioid and Type II/serous carcinomas. The Cancer Genome Atlas studies of endometrioid and serous carcinoma offered revolutionary insight into the subclassification of endometrial carcinoma, i.e. that there are four distinct categories of endometrial carcinoma, rather than two, based on genomic architecture. In this review, we provide an overview of immunohistochemical and molecular markers in endometrial carcinoma and comment on the important future directions in endometrial carcinoma subclassification arising from The Cancer Genome Atlas results.

Despite advances in genomic classification of breast cancer, current clinical tests and treatment decisions are commonly based on protein level information. Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue specimens with extended clinical outcomes are widely available. Here, we perform comprehensive proteomic profiling of 300 FFPE breast cancer surgical specimens, 75 of each PAM50 subtype, from patients diagnosed in 2008-2013 (n = 178) and 1986-1992 (n = 122) with linked clinical outcomes. These two cohorts are analyzed separately, and we quantify 4214 proteins across all 300 samples. Within the aggressive PAM50-classified basal-like cases, proteomic profiling reveals two groups with one having characteristic immune hot expression features and highly favorable survival. Her2-Enriched cases separate into heterogeneous groups differing by extracellular matrix, lipid metabolism, and immune-response features. Within 88 triple-negative breast cancers, four proteomic clusters display features of basal-immune hot, basal-immune cold, mesenchymal, and luminal with disparate survival outcomes. Our proteomic analysis characterizes the heterogeneity of breast cancer in a clinically-applicable manner, identifies potential biomarkers and therapeutic targets, and provides a resource for clinical breast cancer classification. Protein level information enables the identification of potential biomarkers and therapeutic targets for breast cancer. Here, the authors perform proteomic analysis of 2 cohorts of breast cancer surgical specimens and identify distinct subtypes, immune features and survival outcomes.

BackgroundThe newly developed Proactive Molecular Risk Classifier for Endometrial Cancer (ProMisE) has consistently been shown to be prognostically significant in endometrial carcinomas (EC). Recently, we and others have demonstrated L1 cell-adhesion molecule (L1CAM) to be a significant indicator of high-risk disease in EC. In the current study, it was our aim to determine the prognostic significance of aberrant L1CAM expression in ProMisE subgroups in a large, single centre, population-based EC cohort.MethodsProMisE (POLE; MMR-D; p53 wt/NSMP; p53 abn) classification results from a cohort of 452 EC were available for analysis. L1CAM expression was studied by immunohistochemistry on whole slides. Correlations between clinicopathological data and survival were calculated.ResultsExpression of L1CAM was most frequent in p53 abnormal tumours (80%). L1CAM status was predictive of worse outcome among tumours with no specific molecular profile (p53 wt/NSMP) (p < 0.0001). Among p53 wt/NSMP EC, L1CAM remained a significant prognosticator for disease-specific survival after multivariate analysis (p = 0.035).ConclusionL1CAM status was able to significantly stratify risk among tumours of the large p53 wt/NSMP ProMisE subgroup of EC. Furthermore, our study confirms a highly significant correlation between mutation-type p53 immunostaining and abnormal L1CAM expression in EC.

Ovarian cancer comprises a broad range of histologically and genetically different tumours. In this Opinion article, Karnezis et al . explore the different origins of ovarian cancers and how these contribute to our understanding of genetic and environmental risk to better prevent and treat these tumours. Ovarian cancer is the fifth cause of cancer-related death in women and comprises a histologically and genetically broad range of tumours, including those of epithelial, sex cord-stromal and germ cell origin. Recent evidence indicates that high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma, clear cell carcinoma and endometrioid carcinoma primarily arise from tissues that are not normally present in the ovary. These histogenetic pathways are informing risk-reduction strategies for the prevention of ovarian and ovary-associated cancers and have highlighted the importance of the seemingly unique ovarian microenvironment.

The recent literature has shown that vulvar squamous cell carcinoma (VSCC) can be stratified into two prognostically relevant groups based on human papillomavirus (HPV) status. The prognostic value of p53 for further sub-stratification, particularly in the HPV-independent group, has not been agreed upon. This disagreement is likely due to tremendous variations in p53 immunohistochemical (IHC) interpretation. To address this problem, we sought to compare p53 IHC patterns with TP53 mutation status. We studied 61 VSCC (48 conventional VSCC, 2 VSCC with sarcomatoid features, and 11 verrucous carcinomas) and 42 in situ lesions (30 differentiated vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia [dVIN], 9 differentiated exophytic vulvar intraepithelial lesions [deVIL], and 3 high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions or usual vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia [HSIL/uVIN]). IHC for p16 and p53, and sequencing of TP53 exons 4–9 were performed. HPV in situ hybridization (ISH) was performed in selected cases. We identified six major p53 IHC patterns, two wild-type patterns: (1) scattered, (2) mid-epithelial expression (with basal sparing), and four mutant patterns: (3) basal overexpression, (4) parabasal/diffuse overexpression, (5) absent, and (6) cytoplasmic expression. These IHC patterns were consistent with TP53 mutation status in 58/61 (95%) VSCC and 39/42 (93%) in situ lesions. Cases that exhibited strong scattered staining and those with a weak basal overexpression pattern could be easily confused. The mid-epithelial pattern was exclusively observed in p16-positive lesions; the basal and parabasal layers that had absent p53 staining, appeared to correlate with the cells that were positive for HPV-ISH. This study describes a pattern-based p53 IHC interpretation framework, which can be utilized as a surrogate marker for TP53 mutational status in both VSCC and vulvar in situ lesions.

Rare cancers, as a collective, account for around a quarter of all cancer diagnoses and deaths. Historically, they have been divided into two groups: cancers defined by their unusual histogenesis (cell of origin or differentiation state)—including chordomas or adult granulosa cell tumours—and histologically defined subtypes of common cancers. Most tumour types in the first group are still clinically and biologically relevant, and have been disproportionately important as sources of insight into cancer biology. By contrast, most of those in the second group have been shown to have neither defining molecular features nor clinical utility. Omics-based analyses have splintered common cancers into a myriad of molecularly, rather than histologically, defined subsets of common cancers, many of which have immediate clinical relevance. Now, almost all rare cancers are either histomolecular entities, which often have pathognomonic mutations, or molecularly defined subsets of more common cancers. The presence of specific genetic variants provides rationale for the testing of targeted drugs in rare cancers. However, in addition to molecular alterations, it is crucial to consider the contributions of both mutation and cell context in the development, biology, and behaviour of these cancers. Patients with rare cancers are disadvantaged because of the challenge of leading clinical trials in this setting due to poor accrual. However, the number of patients with rare cancers will only increase as more molecular subsets of common cancers are identified, necessitating a shift in the focus of clinical trials and research into these cancer types, which, by epidemiological definitions, will become rare tumours.

Although it has long been appreciated that ovarian carcinoma subtypes (serous, clear cell, endometrioid, and mucinous) are associated with different natural histories, most ovarian carcinoma biomarker studies and current treatment protocols for women with this disease are not subtype specific. With the emergence of high-throughput molecular techniques, distinct pathogenetic pathways have been identified in these subtypes. We examined variation in biomarker expression rates between subtypes, and how this influences correlations between biomarker expression and stage at diagnosis or prognosis. In this retrospective study we assessed the protein expression of 21 candidate tissue-based biomarkers (CA125, CRABP-II, EpCam, ER, F-Spondin, HE4, IGF2, K-Cadherin, Ki-67, KISS1, Matriptase, Mesothelin, MIF, MMP7, p21, p53, PAX8, PR, SLPI, TROP2, WT1) in a population-based cohort of 500 ovarian carcinomas that was collected over the period from 1984 to 2000. The expression of 20 of the 21 biomarkers differs significantly between subtypes, but does not vary across stage within each subtype. Survival analyses show that nine of the 21 biomarkers are prognostic indicators in the entire cohort but when analyzed by subtype only three remain prognostic indicators in the high-grade serous and none in the clear cell subtype. For example, tumor proliferation, as assessed by Ki-67 staining, varies markedly between different subtypes and is an unfavourable prognostic marker in the entire cohort (risk ratio [RR] 1.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2%-2.4%) but is not of prognostic significance within any subtype. Prognostic associations can even show an inverse correlation within the entire cohort, when compared to a specific subtype. For example, WT1 is more frequently expressed in high-grade serous carcinomas, an aggressive subtype, and is an unfavourable prognostic marker within the entire cohort of ovarian carcinomas (RR 1.7, 95% CI 1.2%-2.3%), but is a favourable prognostic marker within the high-grade serous subtype (RR 0.5, 95% CI 0.3%-0.8%). The association of biomarker expression with survival varies substantially between subtypes, and can easily be overlooked in whole cohort analyses. To avoid this effect, each subtype within a cohort should be analyzed discretely. Ovarian carcinoma subtypes are different diseases, and these differences should be reflected in clinical research study design and ultimately in the management of ovarian carcinoma.

Human papillomavirus (HPV)-independent vulvar squamous cell carcinoma (VSCC) is an aggressive clinical entity. Current diagnostic guidelines for premalignant lesions are ambiguous, and their molecular profile and progression events are still unclear. We selected 75 samples, from 40 patients, including 33 VSCC, 8 verrucous carcinomas (VC), 13 differentiated-type vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia (dVIN), 11 suspicious for dVIN (?dVIN), 6 differentiated exophytic vulvar intraepithelial lesions (DE-VIL), 2 vulvar acanthosis with altered differentiation (VAAD), and 2 usual-type vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia (uVIN/HSIL). Invasive and precursor lesions were matched in 29 cases. Clinical information, p16 immunohistochemistry, and mutation analysis were performed on all lesions. All dVIN, ?dVIN, DE-VIL, and VAAD were p16 negative, all uVIN/HSIL were p16 positive. In the HPV-independent group, mutations were identified in 6 genes: TP53 (n = 40), PIK3CA (n = 20), HRAS (n = 12), MET (n = 5), PTEN (n = 4), and BRAF (n = 1). TP53 mutations occurred in 73% (22/30) VSCC, 85% (11/13) dVIN, 70% (7/10) ?dVIN and no VC (0/8), DE-VIL (0/6) nor VAAD (0/2). Basal atypia was the only reliable feature of TP53 mutations. ?dVIN lesions that were non-acanthotic and atypical but obscured by inflammation, all harbored TP53 mutations. In lesions without TP53 mutations, PIK3CA (50% VC, 33% DE-VIL, 100% VAAD, 40% VSCC) and HRAS (63% VC, 33% DE-VIL, 0% VAAD, 20% VSCC) mutations were found. Mutational progression from in situ to invasive was seen (7/26, 27%) and usually involved TP53 (4/26, 15%). Cases with TP53 and PIK3CA co-mutations had the worse clinical outcomes (p < 0.001). We recommend testing for p53 in all HPV-independent lesions suspicious for dVIN, even in the presence of marked inflammation or non-acanthotic skin, particularly when close to a margin. VC, VAAD, and DE-VIL, were almost never mutated for TP53, but instead often harbored PIK3CA and HRAS mutations. In VSCC, combined TP53 and PIK3CA mutations may inform prognosis.

An updated International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) staging system for endometrial carcinoma was introduced in June 2023. The new system represents a significant departure from traditional endometrial and other gynecological carcinoma staging systems which are agnostic of parameters such as tumor type, tumor grade, lymphovascular space invasion, and molecular alterations. The updated system, which incorporates all of these ‘non-anatomical‘ parameters, is an attempt to make staging more personalized and relevant to patient prognostication and management, and to align with the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology/European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology/European Society of Pathology (ESGO/ESTRO/ESP) risk stratification. Herein, we present a critical review of the new staging system and discuss its advantages and disadvantages. The authors propose that the new FIGO staging system should be first appraised at a multi-institutional and global level with the input of all relevant societies (gynecology, pathology, gynecologic oncology, medical oncology, radiation oncology) to understand the impact, scope, and supporting evidence of the proposed changes. Such a process is fundamental to produce a robust system that pathologists and treating clinicians can adopt.