Clinicopathological and molecular implications of aberrant thyroid transcription factor-1 expression in colorectal carcinomas: an immunohistochemical analysis of 1319 cases using three different antibody clones

Clinical and genetic drivers of oligo-metastatic disease in colon cancer

BACKGROUND

Oligo-metastatic disease (OMD) in colon cancer patients exhibits distinct clinical behavior compared to poly-metastatic disease (PMD), with a more responsive and indolent course. This study aims to identify clinical and biological factors uniquely associated with oligo-metastatic behavior.

METHODS

Metastatic colon cancer patients from an academic center underwent genetic characterization. OMD was defined as ≤3 lesions per organ, each with a total diameter <70 mm and none exceeding 25 mm. Tumor DNA sequencing by NGS utilized the TruSight Oncology 500 kit. Overall survival (OS) was determined from metastasis diagnosis until death using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Multivariate Cox regression examined prognostic links between clinicopathological and genetic factors. Associations with metastatic patterns were evaluated using Chi-square.

RESULTS

The analysis involved 104 patients (44 with OMD, 60 with PMD). OMD was more prevalent in males (P = 0.0299) and with single organ involvement (P = 0.0226). Multivariate analysis adjusted for age (>70 vs. <70 years), gender (male vs. female), tumor side (right vs. left), metastatic involvement (more than one site vs. one site), response to first-line therapy (disease control vs. no disease control), and RAS/BRAF variants (wild-type vs. mutated) identified OMD vs. PMD as the strongest independent predictor of survival (HR: 0.14; 95 % CI: 0.06-0.33; P<0.0001). OMD patients exhibited distinct molecular characteristics, including lower frequencies of BRAF p.V600E (P=0.0315) and KRAS mutations (P=0.0456), as well as a higher frequency of high tumor mutational burden (P=0.0127). Additionally, by integrating data from public datasets and our case study, we hypothesize that some gene alterations (i.e.: BRAF, SMAD4, RAF1, and mTOR) may prevent OMD occurrence.

CONCLUSION

OMD, characterized by male predominance, single-site involvement, and distinct molecular features in colon cancer, suggests the need for tailored management strategies.

Utility of Immunohistochemistry in the Diagnosis of Pleuropulmonary and Mediastinal Cancers: A Review and Update

CONTEXT.—

Immunohistochemistry has become a valuable ancillary tool for the accurate classification of pleuropulmonary and mediastinal neoplasms necessary for therapeutic decisions and predicting prognostic outcome. Diagnostic accuracy has significantly improved because of the continuous discoveries of tumor-associated biomarkers and the development of effective immunohistochemical panels.

OBJECTIVE.—

To increase the accuracy of diagnosis and classify pleuropulmonary neoplasms through immunohistochemistry.

DATA SOURCES.—

Literature review and the author's research data and personal practice experience.

CONCLUSIONS.—

This review article highlights that appropriately selecting immunohistochemical panels enables pathologists to effectively diagnose most primary pleuropulmonary neoplasms and differentiate primary lung tumors from a variety of metastatic tumors to the lung. Knowing the utilities and pitfalls of each tumor-associated biomarker is essential to avoid potential diagnostic errors.

Development and validation of a decision tree for distinguishing pulmonary adenocarcinomas with mucinous features and metastatic colorectal adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Diagnosis of mucinous carcinomas in the lung on transbronchial biopsy or fine-needle aspiration (FNA) samples can be difficult for the pathologist, because primary and metastatic tumors can have similar morphological, immunohistochemical, and molecular characteristics. Correct diagnosis is key to determine appropriate therapy and to distinguish primary from metastatic disease. This distinction often falls to the pathologist in patients with a history of mucinous adenocarcinoma of the colon. Despite its drawbacks, immunohistochemistry is often employed to help assign a primary site for mucinous adenocarcinomas in the lung. However, the published data in this regard is limited to studies that use only a handful of markers.

METHODS

The authors examined the staining characteristics and heterogeneity of CK7, TTF-1, NapsinA, CK20, CDX2, and SATB2 in resection specimens of pulmonary adenocarcinomas with mucinous features and metastatic colorectal adenocarcinoma.

RESULTS

Based on the heterogeneity, sensitivity, and specificity in this cohort, the authors developed a decision tree based on TTF-1, SATB2, CDX2, and CK7 to categorize tumors as primary or metastatic lesions. Validation of the decision tree in FNA specimens from the lungs and lung-draining lymph nodes showed 84% concurrence in cases from the lung and 100% concurrence in cases from the lymph node. In cases where the algorithm assigned a primary site, it was 95% accurate compared to the multidisciplinary diagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS

This method holds promise in distinguishing primary versus metastatic lesions in resection, biopsy, and FNA samples from the lungs.

Predictive Impact of Diffuse Positivity for TTF-1 Expression in Patients Treated With Platinum-Doublet Chemotherapy Plus Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors for Advanced Nonsquamous NSCLC

Introduction

Pervious studies reported the association of TTF-1 expression with the efficacy of platinum-doublet chemotherapy in combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors in advanced nonsquamous NSCLC. Nevertheless, the predictive value of extent of TTF-1 expression (diffuse or focal TTF-1 positivity) remains unclear.

Methods

The present study retrospectively reviewed 74 patients with TTF-1-positive recurrent or advanced nonsquamous NSCLC receiving first-line chemoimmunotherapy in a single institution in Japan. TTF-1 expression score in pretreatment tumor specimens was evaluated using immunohistochemistry, and the impact of chemoimmunotherapy response was analyzed.

Results

In the total cohort, ≥50% of the tumor cells were TTF-1 positive (i.e., diffusely TTF-1 positive) in specimens of 61 patients (82.4%), whereas 10% to 49% of the tumor cells were TTF-1 positive (i.e., focally TTF-1 positive) in specimens of the remaining 13 patients (17.6%). In multivariate analysis, the median progression-free survival and overall survival (OS) were significantly longer in patients with diffusely TTF-1-positive tumors than in those with focally TTF-1-positive tumors (14.2 versus 9.2 mo, p = 0.01 and 30.2 versus 17.3 mo, p = 0.01, respectively). Moreover, the median OS was significantly longer in patients receiving chemoimmunotherapy including pemetrexed than in those receiving chemoimmunotherapy not including pemetrexed among the patients with diffusely TTF-1-positive tumors (not attained versus 23.2 mo, p < 0.01).

Conclusions

The positive extent of diffuse TTF-1 expression associated with patient outcome was an independent predictive factor for better progression-free survival and OS in patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC receiving chemoimmunotherapy.

Thyroid transcription factor-1 expression in rectal adenocarcinoma metastatic to the lung

Distinguishing metastatic lung tumors from primary lung cancer is essential for planning the appropriate treatment strategy. Thyroid transcription factor-1 (TTF-1) is a reliable immunohistochemistry (IHC) marker for differentiating between primary lung adenocarcinomas and metastatic lung tumors originating from colorectal adenocarcinomas. Herein, we report a rare case of TTF-1 expression in both the metastatic lung tumor and primary rectal adenocarcinoma. Aside from the similar histological characteristics of both tumors when stained with hematoxylin-eosin, the IHC patterns, including negative results for alveolar epithelium markers (napsin A and CK7) and positive results for intestinal markers (CK20, CDX2, SATB2, and β-catenin), of the lung tumor and the primary rectal adenocarcinoma strongly supported the final diagnosis. Considering the non-negligible frequency of TTF-1 positivity in colorectal adenocarcinomas, applying the IHC panel including multiple markers for alveolar epithelium and intestinal differentiation, would be helpful to support the diagnosis of metastatic lung tumor from a rectal adenocarcinoma.

Report of two patients in whom comparisons of the somatic mutation profile were useful for the diagnosis of metastatic tumors

Background

When a patient has multiple tumors in different organs, it is very important to identify whether the tumors are multiple cancers or metastasis from one tumor in order to establish an optimal treatment strategy. However, it is difficult to obtain an accurate diagnosis from conventional diagnostic strategies, including immunohistochemistry. We report two patients with multiple tumors in which a somatic mutation comparison using next-generation sequencing (NGS) was useful for the diagnosis of a metastatic tumor.

Case presentations

Patient 1: A 64-year-old man was diagnosed with gastric and lung cancer. After radical chemoradiotherapy for lung cancer, gastrectomy was planned for gastric cancer. At gastrectomy, the patient underwent a multiple omics analysis for “Project HOPE”. The gene mutational signature of the gastric tumor showed signature 4 of COSMIC mutational signature version 2, which was associated with smoking and has not been found in gastric cancer. To confirm that the gastric tumor was metastasis from lung cancer, we conducted a somatic mutation comparison of the two tumors with 409-gene panel sequencing, which revealed that 28 of 97 mutations in the lung tumor completely matched those of the gastric tumor. Based on these findings, the gastric tumor was diagnosed as metastasis from lung cancer. Patient 2: A 47-year-old woman underwent distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer. A colon tumor was detected 6 years after gastrectomy. The colon lesion was a submucosal tumor-like elevated tumor, and was suspected to be metastasis from gastric cancer. The patient underwent sigmoidectomy, and participated in “Project HOPE”. The possibility of primary colon cancer could not be ruled out, and we conducted a somatic mutation comparison of the two tumors as we did with Patient 1. Panel sequencing revealed 11 mutations in the gastric tumors, 4 of which completely matched those of the colon tumor. The colon tumor was diagnosed as metastasis from gastric cancer.

Conclusion

We reported two patients with multiple tumors in which a somatic mutation comparison using NGS was useful for the diagnosis of a metastatic tumor.

Aberrant expression of TTF1, p63, and cytokeratins in a diffuse large B-cell lymphoma

Pancytokeratins and TTF-1 are used in working up carcinomas of unknown primary and p63 is expressed in many cell lineages. We present a case of a TTF-1, p63, and cytokeratins positive small round blue cell lesion presenting in a patient with enlarged right supraclavicular lymph nodes and multiple solid pulmonary nodules. The preliminary report to the clinical team was "suspicious for carcinoma." However, after a complete work up the final diagnosis of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, nongerminal center B-cell phenotype, "double expressor," was rendered (based on Han's algorithm). This case brings up significant diagnostic dilemma as some lymphoid malignancies can morphologically mimic poorly differentiated carcinoma and stain positive for carcinoma markers. Additionally, the frequently used TTF-1 SPT23 antibody clone has strong nuclear staining in rare cases of DLBCL, which is a diagnostic pitfall. To our best knowledge this is the first reported case of DLBCL staining positive for three carcinoma markers.

Practical Application of Lineage-Specific Immunohistochemistry Markers: Transcription Factors (Sometimes) Behaving Badly

CONTEXT.—

Transcription factors (TFs) are proteins that regulate gene expression and control RNA transcription from DNA. Lineage-specific TFs have increasingly been used by pathologists to determine tumor lineage, especially in the setting of metastatic tumors of unknown primary, among other uses. With experience gathered from its daily application and increasing pitfalls reported from immunohistochemical studies, these often-touted highly specific TFs are not as reliable as once thought.

OBJECTIVES.—

To summarize the established roles of many of the commonly used TFs in clinical practice and to discuss known and potential sources for error (eg, false-positivity from cross-reactivity, aberrant, and overlap "lineage-specific" expression) in their application and interpretation.

DATA SOURCES.—

Literature review and the authors' personal practice experience were used. Several examples selected from the University Health Network (Toronto, Ontario, Canada) are illustrated.

CONCLUSIONS.—

The application of TF diagnostic immunohistochemistry has enabled pathologists to better assess the lineage/origin of primary and metastatic tumors. However, the awareness of potential pitfalls is essential to avoid misdiagnosis.

Pathologic differential diagnosis of metastatic carcinoma in the liver

The liver is one of the most common sites to which malignancies preferentially metastasize. Although a substantial number of liver malignancies are primary tumors, including hepatocellular carcinoma and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, the metastasis of carcinomas to the liver is relatively common and frequently encountered in clinical settings. Representative carcinomas that frequently metastasize to the liver include colorectal carcinoma, breast carcinoma, neuroendocrine tumors, lung carcinoma, and gastric carcinoma. The diagnostic confirmation of suspected metastatic lesions in the liver is generally achieved through a histopathologic examination of biopsy tissues. Although morphology is the most important feature for a pathologic differential diagnosis of metastatic carcinomas, immunohistochemical studies facilitate the differentiation of metastatic carcinoma origins and subtypes. Useful immunohistochemical markers for the differential diagnosis of metastatic carcinomas in the liver include cytokeratins (CK7, CK19, and CK20), neuroendocrine markers (CD56, synaptophysin, and chromogranin A), and tissue-specific markers (CDX2, SATB2, TTF-1, GCDFP-15, mammaglobin, etc.). Here, we provide a brief review about the pathologic differential diagnosis of major metastatic carcinomas in the liver.

Best Practices Recommendations for Diagnostic Immunohistochemistry in Lung Cancer

Since the 2015 WHO classification was introduced into clinical practice, immunohistochemistry (IHC) has figured prominently in lung cancer diagnosis. In addition to distinction of small cell versus non-small cell carcinoma, patients' treatment of choice is directly linked to histologic subtypes of non-small cell carcinoma, which pertains to IHC results, particularly for poorly differentiated tumors. The use of IHC has improved diagnostic accuracy in the classification of lung carcinoma, but the interpretation of IHC results remains challenging in some instances. Also, pathologists must be aware of many interpretation pitfalls, and the use of IHC should be efficient to spare the tissue for molecular testing. The International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer Pathology Committee received questions on practical application and interpretation of IHC in lung cancer diagnosis. After discussions in several International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer Pathology Committee meetings, the issues and caveats were summarized in terms of 11 key questions covering common and important diagnostic situations in a daily clinical practice with some relevant challenging queries. The questions cover topics such as the best IHC markers for distinguishing NSCLC subtypes, differences in thyroid transcription factor 1 clones, and the utility of IHC in diagnosing uncommon subtypes of lung cancer and distinguishing primary from metastatic tumors. This article provides answers and explanations for the key questions about the use of IHC in diagnosis of lung carcinoma, representing viewpoints of experts in thoracic pathology that should assist the community in the appropriate use of IHC in diagnostic pathology.

Comparison of Three Different TTF-1 Clones in Resected Primary Lung Cancer and Epithelial Pulmonary Metastases

OBJECTIVES

Immunohistochemical staining against thyroid transcription factor 1 (TTF-1) is often used to distinguish lung adenocarcinoma from squamous cell carcinoma and pulmonary metastasis.

METHODS

TTF-1 expression was examined using the antibody clones 8G7G3/1, SPT24, and SP141 on tissue microarrays from 665 cases of resected lung cancers and 428 pulmonary metastases.

RESULTS

Most lung adenocarcinomas, 89%, 93%, and 93%, were positive with TTF-1 clones 8G7G3/1, SPT24, and SP141, respectively. The corresponding figures for lung squamous cell carcinomas were 0%, 6%, and 8%. In total, five (2%), 19 (7%), and 21 (8%) of the pulmonary metastases from colorectal adenocarcinomas were positive with clones 8G7G3/1, SPT24, and SP141, respectively. Other TTF-1-positive pulmonary metastases (n = 8) were thyroid, urothelial, pancreatic, small bowel, and cervix carcinomas.

CONCLUSIONS

TTF-1 expression in lung cancer and pulmonary metastases differs between clones, with 8G7G3/1 being more specific but less sensitive compared with SPT24 and SP141.

Evaluation of Carcinoma of Unknown Primary on Cytologic Specimens

Carcinoma of unknown primary is defined as metastatic carcinoma without a clinically obvious primary tumor. Determining the tissue of origin in carcinoma of unknown primary is important for site-directed therapy. Immunohistochemistry is the most widely used tool for the work-up of metastases, but molecular profiling assays are also available. This review provides an overview of immunohistochemical stains in the work-up of metastatic carcinoma, with a focus on newer site-specific markers, and discusses the role of gene expression profiling assays for determining tissue of origin. The utility of cytopathology specimens in the evaluation of carcinoma of unknown primary also is highlighted.