Poorly differentiated neoplasms of unknown primary site: diagnostic usefulness of a molecular cancer classifier assay

Cancer of unknown primary and the «seed and soil» hypothesis

The worldwide incidence rate of cancer of unknown primary (CUP) reaches 5% (Kang et al, 2021; Lee, Sanoff, 2020; Yang et al, 2022). CUP has an alarmingly high mortality rate, with 84% of patients succumbing within the first year following diagnosis (Registration and Service, 2018). Under normal circumstances, tumor cell metastasis follows the «seed and soil» hypothesis, displaying a tissue-specific pattern of cancer cell homing behavior based on the microenvironment composition of secondary organs. In this study, we questioned whether seed and soil concept applies to CUP, and whether the pattern of tumor and metastasis manifestations for cancer of known primary (CKP) can be used to inform diagnostic strategies for CUP. We compared data from metastatic and primary CUP foci to the metastasis patterns observed in CKP. Furthermore, we evaluated several techniques for identifying the tissue-of-origin (TOO) in CUP profiling, including DNA, RNA, and epigenetic TOO techniques.

Clinicopathological analysis of CD47 and signal regulatory protein alpha expression in myeloid sarcoma patients: CD47 expression is a favourable prognostic factor

Myeloid sarcoma is a rare extramedullary haematopoietic malignancy. Interaction between CD47 and signal regulatory protein α (SIRPα) inhibits phagocytosis. CD47-positive tumours confer poor prognoses in various malignant tumours, including acute myeloid leukaemia. This study aimed to investigate the clinicopathological effects of CD47 and SIRPα expression in myeloid sarcoma. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) of CD47 and SIRPα was performed in 84 biopsy samples obtained from patients with myeloid sarcoma, some of which were CD47-positive. Patients were categorised into the following two groups based on IHC of SIRPα: those with SIRPα-positive neoplastic cells (nSIRPα) and, SIRPα expression on non-neoplastic stromal cells in tumour microenvironment (miSIRPα). In addition, patients with CD47 positivity had higher lymphocytic infiltration into the tumour microenvironment. Overall, these patients had significantly higher overall survival, however, no significant difference was observed in progression-free survival. No significant prognostic differences were observed between the nSIRPα and miSIRPα groups. This is the first study to demonstrate an association between CD47 expression and improved prognosis in myeloid sarcoma. Nonetheless, it will be necessary to conduct additional research on gene expression and genomic abnormalities to elucidate the corresponding pathogenesis of myeloid sarcoma.

A case report of challenges in distinguishing gastroesophageal junction hepatoid adenocarcinoma from testicular germ cell tumor: Insights for improved diagnosis with gene expression profiling

Gastroesophageal junction hepatoid adenocarcinoma is a rare form of gastroesophageal cancer. We present a case of a 38-year-old man with no significant medical history who was diagnosed with gastroesophageal junction hepatoid adenocarcinoma but initially misdiagnosed with a testicular germ cell tumor, given the elevated alpha-feto protein and poorly differentiated pathology. We will elaborate on the importance of gene expression profiling in modern oncology to better define the tumor of origin in patients with cancer of unknown primary origin, how it helped us to diagnose gastroesophageal junction hepatoid adenocarcinoma and how it can help identify potential additional therapeutic targets in some cases. Due to the rarity of this subtype of gastroesophageal junction cancer there is a lack of standard therapeutic options, and we will discuss the most commonly used treatment regimens. The patient underwent three lines of antineoplastic therapy and unfortunately passed after 51 weeks of follow-up.

Comprehensive analysis of cancer of unknown primary and recommendation of a histological and immunohistochemical diagnostic strategy from China

BACKGROUND

Previous studies on cancer of unknown primary (CUP) mainly focus on treatment and prognosis in western populations and lacked clinical evaluation of different IHC markers, so this study aimed to evaluate characteristics of CUP and recommend a diagnostic strategy from a single center in China.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Data of 625 patients with CUP were retrospectively collected and reviewed. The patients ranged in age from 20 to 91 years, with a female-to-male ratio of 1.3:1. The predominant histological type was poor or undifferentiated adenocarcinomas (308; 49.3%). The results of Canhelp-Origin molecular testing for the identification of the tissue of origin in 262 of 369 patients (71.0%) were considered predictable (similarity score > 45), with the most common predicted primary tumor site being the breast (57, 21.8%). Unpredictable molecular results correlated with more aggressive clinical parameters and poor survival. Thee positivity rates of several targeted antibodies (GATA3, GCDFP15, TTF1, Napsin A, and PAX8), based on the clinically predicted site, were lower than those reported for the corresponding primary tumors. Nonetheless, TRPS1 and INSM1 were reliable markers of predicted breast carcinoma (75.0%) and neuroendocrine tumors (83.3%), respectively. P16 expression, as well as HPV and EBER testing contributed significantly to the diagnosis of squamous cell carcinomas. Survival analysis revealed that older ages (> 57), ≥ 3 metastatic sites, non-squamous cell carcinomas, bone/liver/lung metastases, unpredictable molecular results, and palliative treatment correlated with poor overall survival.

CONCLUSIONS

We recommend a CUP diagnostic strategy involving the use of targeted antibody panels as per histological findings that is potentially applicable in clinical practice. The markers TRPS1, INSM1, and P16 expression, as well as HPV and EBER testing are particularly valuable in this aspect. Molecular testing is also predictive of survival rates.

Significance of Distinct Liquid Biopsy Compartments in Evaluating Somatic Mutations for Targeted Therapy Selection in Cancer of Unknown Primary

PURPOSE

Cancer of unknown primary (CUP) accounts for 2-5% of all cancer diagnoses, wherein standard investigations fail to reveal the original tumor site. Basket trials allocate targeted therapeutics based on actionable somatic mutations, independent of tumor entity. These trials, however, mostly rely on variants identified in tissue biopsies. Since liquid biopsies (LB) represent the overall tumor genomic landscape, they may provide an ideal diagnostic source in CUP patients. To identify the most informative liquid biopsy compartment, we compared the utility of genomic variant analysis for therapy stratification in two LB compartments (circulating cell-free (cf) and extracellular vesicle (ev) DNA).

METHODS

CfDNA and evDNA from 23 CUP patients were analyzed using a targeted gene panel covering 151 genes. Identified genetic variants were interpreted regarding diagnostic and therapeutic relevance using the MetaKB knowledgebase.

RESULTS

LB revealed a total of 22 somatic mutations in evDNA and/or cfDNA in 11/23 patients. Out of the 22 identified somatic variants, 14 are classified as Tier I druggable somatic variants. Comparison of variants identified in evDNA and cfDNA revealed an overlap of 58% of somatic variants in both LB compartments, whereas over 40% of variants were only found in one or the other compartment.

CONCLUSION

We observed substantial overlap between somatic variants identified in evDNA and cfDNA of CUP patients. Nonetheless, interrogation of both LB compartments can potentially increase the rate of druggable alterations, stressing the significance of liquid biopsies for possible primary-independent basket and umbrella trial inclusion.

Undifferentiated and Dedifferentiated Metastatic Melanomas Masquerading as Soft Tissue Sarcomas: Mutational Signature Analysis and Immunotherapy Response

The distinction between undifferentiated melanoma (UM) or dedifferentiated melanoma (DM) from undifferentiated or unclassifiable sarcoma can be difficult and requires the careful correlation of clinical, pathologic, and genomic findings. In this study, we examined the utility of mutational signatures to identify patients with UM/DM with particular attention as to whether this distinction matters for treatment because the survival of patients with metastatic melanoma has dramatically improved with immunologic therapy, whereas durable responses are less frequent in sarcomas. We identified 19 cases of UM/DM that were initially reported as unclassified or undifferentiated malignant neoplasm or sarcoma and submitted for targeted next-generation sequencing analysis. These cases were confirmed as UM/DM by harboring melanoma driver mutations, UV signature, and high tumor mutation burden. One case of DM showed melanoma in situ. Meanwhile, 18 cases represented metastatic UM/DM. Eleven patients had a prior history of melanoma. Thirteen of 19 (68%) of the tumors were immunohistochemically completely negative for 4 melanocytic markers (S100, SOX10, HMB45, and MELAN-A). All cases harbored a dominant UV signature. Frequent driver mutations involved BRAF (26%), NRAS (32%), and NF1 (42%). In contrast, the control cohort of undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcomas (UPS) of deep soft tissue exhibited a dominant aging signature in 46.6% (7/15) without evidence of UV signature. The median tumor mutation burden for DM/UM vs UPS was 31.5 vs 7.0 mutations/Mb (P < .001). A favorable response to immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy was observed in 66.6% (12/18) of patients with UM/DM. Eight patients exhibited a complete response and were alive with no evidence of disease at the last follow-up (median 45.5 months). Our findings support the usefulness of the UV signature in discriminating DM/UM vs UPS. Furthermore, we present evidence suggesting that patients with DM/UM and UV signatures can benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy.

Adenocarcinoma of an Unknown Primary Site: Presentation, Diagnosis, and Management

Carcinoma of unknown primary (CUP) is a rare metastatic disease in which a primary tumor site cannot be identified. CUP is a diagnosis of exclusion requiring prior workup to identify a primary site. We present a case of a 64-year-old male with vague abdominal pain, a history of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), gastritis, esophagitis, hepatitis C, alcoholic pancreatitis, liver hemangioma, and Warthin tumor, and family history of cancer that was found to have CUP. The diagnosis was made after an extensive workup was done including serum tumor markers, computed tomography (CT) and ultrasound (US) imaging, flow cytometry, and an array of immunohistochemistry stains positive for only cytokeratin 7.

Left Axilla Adenocarcinoma of Unknown Origin

A 76-year-old woman presents with a palpable left axillary mass, yet no breast lesions are found. What is your diagnosis?

Molecular Pathology of Lung Cancer

This overview of the molecular pathology of lung cancer includes a review of the most salient molecular alterations of the genome, transcriptome, and the epigenome. The insights provided by the growing use of next-generation sequencing (NGS) in lung cancer will be discussed, and interrelated concepts such as intertumor heterogeneity, intratumor heterogeneity, tumor mutational burden, and the advent of liquid biopsy will be explored. Moreover, this work describes how the evolving field of molecular pathology refines the understanding of different histologic phenotypes of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and the underlying biology of small-cell lung cancer. This review will provide an appreciation for how ongoing scientific findings and technologic advances in molecular pathology are crucial for development of biomarkers, therapeutic agents, clinical trials, and ultimately improved patient care.

A Challenging Task: Identifying Patients with Cancer of Unknown Primary (CUP) According to ESMO Guidelines: The CUPISCO Trial Experience

BACKGROUND

CUPISCO is an ongoing randomized phase II trial (NCT03498521) comparing molecularly guided therapy versus platinum-based chemotherapy in patients newly diagnosed with "unfavorable" cancer of unknown primary (CUP).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with an unfavorable CUP diagnosis, as defined by the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO), and available cancer tissue for molecular sequencing are generally eligible. Potential patients with CUP entering screening undergo a review involving reference histopathology and clinical work-up by a central eligibility review team (ERT). Patients with "favorable" CUP, a strongly suspected primary site of origin, lack of tissue, or unmet inclusion criteria are excluded.

RESULTS

As of April 30, 2020, 628 patients had entered screening and 346 (55.1%) were screen failed. Screen fails were due to technical reasons (n = 89), failure to meet inclusion and exclusion criteria not directly related to CUP diagnosis (n = 89), and other reasons (n = 33). A total of 124 (35.8%) patients were excluded because unfavorable adeno- or poorly differentiated CUP could not be confirmed by the ERT. These cases were classified into three groups ineligible because of (a) histologic subtype, such as squamous and neuroendocrine, or favorable CUP; (b) evidence of a possible primary tumor; or (c) noncarcinoma histology.

CONCLUSION

Experience with CUPISCO has highlighted challenges with standardized screening in an international clinical trial and the difficulties in diagnosing unfavorable CUP. Reconfirmation of unfavorable CUP by an ERT in a clinical trial can result in many reasons for screen failures. By sharing this experience, we aim to foster understanding of diagnostic challenges and improve diagnostic pathology and clinical CUP algorithms.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

A high unmet need exists for improved treatment of cancer of unknown primary (CUP); however, study in a trial setting is faced with the significant challenge of definitively distinguishing CUP from other cancer types. This article reports the authors' experience of this challenge so far in the ongoing CUPISCO trial, which compares treatments guided by patients' unique genetic signatures versus standard chemotherapy. The data presented will aid future decision-making regarding diagnosing true CUP cases; this will have far-reaching implications in the design, execution, and interpretation of not only CUPISCO but also future clinical studies aiming to find much-needed treatment strategies.

Dedifferentiated and Undifferentiated Melanomas: Report of 35 New Cases With Literature Review and Proposal of Diagnostic Criteria

Dedifferentiated melanoma (DM) and undifferentiated melanoma (UM) is defined as a primary or metastatic melanoma showing transition between conventional and undifferentiated components (DM) or lacking histologic and immunophenotypic features of melanoma altogether (UM). The latter is impossible to verify as melanoma by conventional diagnostic tools alone. We herein describe our experience with 35 unpublished cases to expand on their morphologic, phenotypic, and genotypic spectrum, along with a review of 50 previously reported cases (total: 85) to establish the diagnostic criteria. By definition, the dedifferentiated/undifferentiated component lacked expression of 5 routinely used melanoma markers (S100, SOX10, Melan-A, HMB45, Pan-melanoma). Initial diagnoses (known in 66 cases) were undifferentiated/unclassified pleomorphic sarcoma (n=30), unclassified epithelioid malignancy (n=7), pleomorphic rhabdomyosarcoma (n=5), other specific sarcoma types (n=6), poorly differentiated carcinoma (n=2), collision tumor (n=2), atypical fibroxanthoma (n=2), and reactive osteochondromatous lesion (n=1). In only 11 cases (16.6%) was a diagnosis of melanoma considered. Three main categories were identified: The largest group (n=56) comprised patients with a history of verified previous melanoma who presented with metastatic DM or UM. Axillary or inguinal lymph nodes, soft tissue, bone, and lung were mainly affected. A melanoma-compatible mutation was detected in 35 of 48 (73%) evaluable cases: BRAF (n=20; 40.8%), and NRAS (n=15; 30.6%). The second group (n=15) had clinicopathologic features similar to group 1, but a melanoma history was lacking. Axillary lymph nodes (n=6) was the major site in this group followed by the lung, soft tissue, and multiple site involvement. For this group, NRAS mutation was much more frequent (n=9; 60%) than BRAF (n=3; 20%) and NF1 (n=1; 6.6%). The third category (n=14) comprised primary DM (12) or UM (2). A melanoma-compatible mutation was detected in only 7 cases: BRAF (n=2), NF1 (n=2), NRAS (n=2), and KIT exon 11 (n=1). This extended follow-up study highlights the high phenotypic plasticity of DM/UM and indicates significant underrecognition of this aggressive disease among general surgical pathologists. The major clues to the diagnosis of DM and UM are: (1) presence of minimal differentiated clone in DM, (2) earlier history of melanoma, (3) undifferentiated histology that does not fit any defined entity, (4) locations at sites that are unusual for undifferentiated/unclassified pleomorphic sarcoma (axilla, inguinal, neck, digestive system, etc.), (5) unusual multifocal disease typical of melanoma spread, (6) detection of a melanoma-compatible gene mutation, and (7) absence of another genuine primary (eg, anaplastic carcinoma) in other organs.

Cancer of Unknown Primary: Challenges and Progress in Clinical Management

Simple Summary

Patients with cancer of unknown primary site suffer the burden of an uncertain disease, which is characterized by the impossibility to identify the tissue where the tumor has originated. The identification of the primary site of a tumor is of great importance for the patient to have access to site-specific treatments and be enrolled in clinical trials. Therefore, patients with cancer of unknown primary have reduced therapeutic opportunities and poor prognosis. Advancements have been made in the molecular characterization of this tumor, which could be used to infer the tumor site-of-origin and thus broaden the diagnostic outcome. Moreover, we describe here the novel therapeutic opportunities that are based on the genetic and immunophenotypic characterization of the tumor, and thus independent from the tumor type, which could provide most benefit to patients with cancer of unknown primary.

Abstract

Distant metastases are the main cause of cancer-related deaths in patients with advanced tumors. A standard diagnostic workup usually contains the identification of the tissue-of-origin of metastatic tumors, although under certain circumstances, it remains elusive. This disease setting is defined as cancer of unknown primary (CUP). Accounting for approximately 3–5% of all cancer diagnoses, CUPs are characterized by an aggressive clinical behavior and represent a real therapeutic challenge. The lack of determination of a tissue of origin precludes CUP patients from specific evidence-based therapeutic options or access to clinical trial, which significantly impacts their life expectancy. In the era of precision medicine, it is essential to characterize CUP molecular features, including the expression profile of non-coding RNAs, to improve our understanding of CUP biology and identify novel therapeutic strategies. This review article sheds light on this enigmatic disease by summarizing the current knowledge on CUPs focusing on recent discoveries and emerging diagnostic strategies.

The role of molecular profiling in the diagnosis and management of metastatic undifferentiated cancer of unknown primary✰: Molecular profiling of metastatic cancer of unknown primary

Cancer of unknown primary (CUP) refers to metastatic tumors for which the primary tumor of origin cannot be determined at the time of diagnosis, despite extensive clinicopathologic investigations. Molecular profiling is increasingly able to predict a probable primary tumor type for CUP when clinicopathologic workup is inconclusive. Numerous studies have explored the use of various molecular profiling techniques for identification of site/tissue of origin of CUP. These techniques include gene expression profiling utilizing microarray, reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction, RNA-sequencing, somatic gene mutation profiling with next-generation DNA sequencing, and epigenomics including DNA methylation profiling. Despite the generally poor prognosis of CUP, a minority of patients can expect to benefit from targeted therapy despite being agnostic to the tissue of origin. Studies have explored the use of various molecular profiling techniques to predict prognostic and therapeutic biomarkers, with the goal of improving outcome for patients with CUP. However, discordant results between non-randomized and randomized clinical trials in evaluating tumor-type specific therapies raise uncertainties of the benefits of molecularly-predicted tissue of origin-based treatment in routine clinical use. Nevertheless, the current overall trend is in favor of using molecular tools to refine the diagnosis and clinical management of patients with CUP. More large-cohort, randomized prospective studies are needed to assess and validate the utility and feasibility of molecular profiling to uncover potentially targetable genetic alterations. These efforts will also yield further biological insights into the biology and pathogenesis of CUP (Graphical Abstract).

The diagnostic challenges of patients with carcinoma of unknown primary

INTRODUCTION

Cancer of unknown primary (CUP) is a disease entity encompassing heterogeneous malignancies without a clinically-detectable anatomical primary. It is usually a poor prognosis malignancy with dismal prognosis where molecular and genetic testing were expected to be a major breakthrough.

AREAS COVERED

In this review, we provide an overview of the advances in the understanding of the carcinogenesis, biology, diagnosis and treatment of patients with CUP. This review focuses on the advantages and inconveniences of immunohistochemistry and CUP classifiers in assessing the progress in the management of CUP.

EXPERT OPINION

CUP classifiers were expected to gradually replace the classical multistep approach in identifying the culprit tumors to guide site-specific therapy. Immunohistochemistry staining led to the prediction of a single tissue of origin in 10.8-51%. CUP classifiers identified the primary site in 61-89% of these cases and were concordant with immunohistochemistry in 57.1-100%. Immunohistochemistry is cheap, fast and broadly available whereas CUP classifiers are less widely available and have not been validated in randomized control trials. The diagnostic recommendations consist of a standard pathology evaluation based on morphology and algorithmic immunohistochemistry assessment. Physicians should weigh in the input of the CUP classifier to the clinical picture and pathology investigations before performing additional investigations.

Molecular Profiles of Brain and Pulmonary Metastatic Disease in Cancer of Unknown Primary

Cancers of unknown primary (CUP) are histologically confirmed malignancies but for which further investigation cannot identify a primary site. Improvements in histopathologic modalities for diagnosis have lessened the frequency of CUPs to 3%-5% of all malignancies compared with historical estimates of 5%-10%. Despite this, there is an ongoing debate as to whether CUPs are malignancies where the primary is not found or if they are otherwise a fully separate entity. Improvements in molecular analysis holds promise for improved identification and treatment of CUPs with mixed preliminary results. Here we present a woman with CUP and metastases in her brain and lung. We performed genomic profiling to compare the molecular makeup of each site in order to establish treatment targets. KEY POINTS: Cancer of unknown primary remains a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge. Molecular analysis may provide improvements in diagnosis and novel treatment options. Different sites of metastatic disease have subtle variations in molecular profile. Sequencing of different sites may offer therapeutic options that are either already approved or available in clinical trial.

"Metastatic Cancer of Unknown Primary" or "Primary Metastatic Cancer"?

Cancer of unknown primary (CUP) is an umbrella term used to classify a heterogeneous group of metastatic cancers based on the absence of an identifiable primary tumor. Clinically, CUPs are characterized by a set of distinct features comprising early metastatic dissemination in an atypical pattern, an aggressive clinical course, poor response to empiric chemotherapy and, consequently, a short life expectancy. Two opposing strategies to change the dismal prognosis for the better are pursued. On the one hand, following the traditional tissue-gnostic approach, more and more sophisticated tissue-of-origin (TOO) classifier assays are employed to push identification of the putative primary to its limits with the clear intent of allowing tumor-site specific treatment. However, robust evidence supporting its routine clinical use is still lacking, notably with two recent randomized clinical trials failing to show a patient benefit of TOO-prediction based site-specific treatment over empiric chemotherapy in CUP. On the other hand, with regards to a tissue-agnostic strategy, precision medicine approaches targeting actionable genomic alterations have already transformed the treatment for many known tumor types. Yet, an unmet need remains for well-designed clinical trials to scrutinize its potential role in CUP beyond anecdotal case reports. In the absence of practice changing results, we believe that the emphasis on finding the presumed unknown primary tumor at all costs, implicit in the term CUP, has biased recent research in the field. Focusing on the distinct clinical features shared by all CUPs, we advocate adopting the term primary metastatic cancer (PMC) to denominate a distinct cancer entity instead. In our view, PMC should be considered the archetype of metastatic disease and as such, despite accounting for a mere 2–3% of malignancies, unraveling the mechanisms at play goes beyond improving the prognosis of patients with PMC and promises to greatly enhance our understanding of the metastatic process and carcinogenesis across all cancer types.

Does Cancer of Unknown Primary (CUP) Truly Exist as a Distinct Cancer Entity?

Cancer of unknown primary (CUP) designates an enigmatic cancer entity with histologic confirmation of malignancy from a metastasis but no identifiable primary tumor in spite of a thorough diagnostic work-up. In this review, we discuss the validity of CUP as a distinct cancer entity as well as diagnostic pitfalls. As arguments against a distinct entity, the diagnosis of CUP is erroneous in some cases. Diagnostic pitfalls include incomplete diagnostics, uncertainty in classifying a lesion as either primary or metastasis and mistaking a relapse of an antecedent malignancy as CUP due to histologic and immunohistologic disparities. Given the high frequency of prior malignancies in CUP patients, relapse of an antecedent cancer should always be carefully excluded. Gene expression profiling-based classifier assays aim at aligning the molecular profile of CUP patients with established primary cancer patterns for highest congruency in order to identify the putative primary and treat accordingly. However, the spectrum of predicted putative primaries by molecular techniques is somewhat at odds with the primaries identified in autopsy series. Also, a first randomized clinical trial did not show superiority of primary-tailored therapy over unspecific platinum-based chemotherapy. CUP cases share an aggressive clinical course, atypical metastasis pattern, rapid progression of metastases, a generally poor response to chemotherapy and dismal outcome as distinct clinical features. Metastatic spread appears to take place in the early stages of tumor evolution, with CUP metastases subsequently undergoing genetic evolution toward a chromosomally highly complex and instable karyotype independent from the primary tumor. In clinical practice, the diagnosis of CUP is valid when no primary tumor is detectable. Treatment should ideally offer broad spectrum coverage across numerous malignancies and be well-established in CUP as is the case for carboplatin/paclitaxel and cisplatin / gemcitabine in particular, but it should also cover the most likely putative primary. The diligent diagnosis of CUP is warranted for clinical trials, making the eligibility process particularly laborious. In conclusion, we deem CUP a distinct cancer entity and the diagnosis accurate in most patient cases.

Detection of driver mutations in BRAF can aid in diagnosis and early treatment of dedifferentiated metastatic melanoma

Dedifferentiated metastatic melanoma can pose a significant diagnostic challenge, especially if the history of primary melanoma is not known or is remote. BRAF and NRAS mutations are common melanoma driver mutations that are usually sequenced to evaluate for treatment targets. We evaluated whether BRAF and NRAS mutational testing could contribute to the diagnosis of dedifferentiated metastatic melanoma when immunostains are negative. Seven patients with melanoma who had an additional diagnosis of poorly differentiated sarcoma with negative melanocytic immunostains were tested for BRAF and NRAS mutations. Three patients showed identical BRAF mutations in the melanoma and the poorly differentiated sarcoma and hence were re-classified as metastatic dedifferentiated melanoma. In these three patients, there was an average delay of 7 months before appropriate testing, workup and treatment for metastatic melanoma was initiated. Two of these patients currently have stable metastatic disease and show sustained therapeutic response to melanoma-specific treatment including BRAF inhibitors. BRAF mutational analysis should therefore be considered in cases of poorly differentiated sarcoma, especially if there is a known history of melanoma or with unusual localization of disease. The administration of melanoma-specific treatments in such dedifferentiated cases can show therapeutic response, highlighting the importance of rendering accurate diagnoses on such cases.

The pathogenesis, diagnosis, and management of metastatic tumors to the ovary: a comprehensive review

Secondary tumors of the ovary account for 10-25% of all ovarian malignancies. The most common tumors that give rise to ovarian metastases include breast, colorectal, endometrial, stomach, and appendix cancer. The correct diagnosis of secondary ovarian tumors may be challenging as they are not infrequently misdiagnosed as primary ovarian cancer, particularly in the case of mucinous adenocarcinomas. The distinction from the latter is essential, as it requires different treatment. Immunohistochemistry plays an important role in distinguishing primary ovarian tumors from extra-ovarian metastases and, furthermore, may suggest the primary tumor site. Despite extensive study, some cases remain equivocal even after assessing a broad spectrum of antigens. Therefore, gene expression profiling represents an approach able to further discriminate equivocal findings, and one that has been proven effective in determining the origin of cancer of unknown primary site. The available data concerning secondary ovarian tumors is rather limited owing to the relative heterogeneity of this group and the practical absence of any prospective trials. However, several intriguing questions are encountered in daily practice, including rational diagnostic workup, the role of cytoreductive surgery, and consequent adjuvant chemotherapy. This review seeks to address these issues comprehensively and summarize current knowledge on the epidemiology, pathogenesis, and management of secondary ovarian tumors, including further discussion on the different pathways of metastatisation, metastatic organotropism, and their possible molecular mechanisms.

Metastatic Malignant Melanoma With Complete Loss of Differentiation Markers (Undifferentiated/Dedifferentiated Melanoma): Analysis of 14 Patients Emphasizing Phenotypic Plasticity and the Value of Molecular Testing as Surrogate Diagnostic Marker

Metastatic malignant melanoma is notorious for its phenotypic diversity and loss of differentiation markers. We herein summarized our experience with 14 metastatic melanomas showing complete loss of immunohistochemical melanocytic markers (with or without heterologous differentiation). Patients included 11 men and 3 women aged 24 to 78 years (median, 67 y). Thirteen patients had histologically confirmed primary skin melanoma, and 1 had metastatic melanoma of unknown primary. Undifferentiated metastasis was diagnosed synchronous to primary tumor (n=1), following skin melanoma by 3 months to 9 years (n=11) and preceding it by 1 year (n=1). Sites of undifferentiated metastases were axillary (3), inguinal (1), or submandibular (1) lymph nodes, digestive tract (2), bone/soft tissue (2), lung/pleura (2), and disseminated (n=3). Histology of metastases mimicked undifferentiated pleomorphic or spindle cell sarcoma with variable myxoid and giant cell areas (n=10) and cytokeratin-positive undifferentiated small cell sarcoma (n=1). Three cases showed heterologous dedifferentiation: pleomorphic rhabdomyosarcoma (n=1), teratocarcinosarcoma-like with prominent rhabdomyoblasts (n=1), and adenocarcinoma-like with metaplastic bone (n=1). All cases were negative for S100, melanoma cocktail, HMB45, Melan A, and SOX10. Other markers showed following results: smooth muscle actin (1/14), p16 (1/14), TP53 (2/12), pancytokeratin (4/14), desmin (5/14), h-caldesmon (0/9), and MDM2/CDK4 (0/5). SMARCB1 was intact in 8/8 cases. Genotyping showed BRAF(V600E) mutation (5/14), NRAS mutation (5/14), and BRAF/NRAS wild-type (4/14). In conclusion, undifferentiated/dedifferentiated metastatic melanoma is likely underrecognized and frequently mistaken for undifferentiated sarcoma or other neoplasms. Diagnosis of undifferentiated sarcoma at sites where melanoma metastasis are frequent (eg, inguinal and axillary region) should be made with great caution and warrants exploration of the remote history. Genotyping is a helpful surrogate marker in classifying such difficult cases. In the light of available targeted therapies, recognition of undifferentiated/dedifferentiated metastatic melanoma is mandatory for appropriate treatment.

Cancer of Unknown Primary in Adolescents and Young Adults: Clinicopathological Features, Prognostic Factors and Survival Outcomes

Background

Cancer in adolescents and young adults (AYAs) (15–39 years) is increasingly recognized as a distinct clinical and biological entity. Cancer of unknown primary (CUP), a disease traditionally presenting in older adults with a median age of 65 years, poses several challenges when diagnosed in AYA patients. This study describes clinicopathological features, outcomes and challenges in caring for AYA-CUP patients.

Methods

A retrospective review of 47 AYAs diagnosed with CUP at MD Anderson Cancer Center (6/2006–6/2013) was performed. Patients with favorable CUP subsets treated as per site-specific recommendations were excluded. Demographics, imaging, pathology and treatment data was collected using a prospectively maintained CUP database. Kaplan-Meier product limit method and log-rank test were used to estimate and compare overall survival. The cox-proportional model was used for multivariate analyses.

Results

Median age was 35 years (range 19–39). All patients underwent comprehensive workup. Adenocarcinoma was the predominant histology (70%). A median of 9 immunostains (range 2–29) were performed. The most common putative primary was biliary tract based on clinicopathological parameters as well as gene profiling. Patients presented with a median of 2 metastatic sites [lymph node (60%), lung (47%), liver (38%) and bone (34%)]. Most commonly used systemic chemotherapies included gemcitabine, fluorouracil, taxanes and platinum agents. Median overall survival for the entire cohort was 10.0 (95% confidence interval (CI): 6.7–15.4) months. On multivariate analyses, elevated lactate dehydrogenase (Hazard ratio (HR) 3.66; 95%CI 1.52–8.82; P = 0.004), ≥3 metastatic sites (HR 5.34; 95%CI 1.19–23.9; P = 0.029), and tissue of origin not tested (HR 3.4; 95%CI 1.44–8.06; P = 0.005) were associated with poor overall survival. Culine’s CUP prognostic model (lactate dehydrogenase, performance status, liver metastases) was validated in this cohort (median overall survival: good-risk 25.2 months vs. poor-risk 6.1 months).

Conclusions

AYA-CUP is associated with a poor prognosis. In the current “-omics” era collaborative research efforts towards understanding tumor biology and therapeutic targets in AYA-CUP is an unmet need, necessary for improving outcomes in young CUP patients.

Location of metastases in cancer of unknown primary are not random and signal familial clustering

Cancer of unknown primary (CUP) is a fatal disease diagnosed through metastases. It shows intriguing familial clustering with certain defined primary cancers. Here we examine whether metastatic location in CUP patients is related to primary non-CUP cancers in relatives based on the Swedish Cancer Registry. Standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) were calculated for CUP patients defined by metastatic location depending on cancer in their first degree relatives. SIRs for CUP were high in association with liver (3.94), ovarian (3.41), lung (2.43) and colorectal cancers (1.83) in relatives. The SIR was 1.63 for CUP with metastases in the abdomen when a relative was diagnosed with ovarian cancer. CUP with liver metastases associated with liver (1.44) cancer in relatives. CUP with head and neck region metastases associated with relatives’ esophageal (2.87) cancer. CUP metastases in the thorax associated with a relative’s cancers in the upper aerodigestive tract (2.14) and lung (1.74). The findings, matching metastatic location in CUP and primary cancer in relatives, could be reconciled if these cases of CUP constitute a phenotypically modified primary lacking tissue identification, resulting from epitope immunoediting. Alternatively, CUP metastases arise in a genetically favored tissue environment (soil) promoting growth of both primary cancers and metastases (seeds).