Neuroendocrine Marker Expression in Primary Non-neuroendocrine Epithelial Tumors of the Ovary: A Study of 551 Cases

Expression of neuroendocrine (NE) markers in primary ovarian non-NE epithelial tumors has rarely been evaluated. The aim of our study was to evaluate the expression of the most widely used NE markers in these neoplasms and to determine any prognostic significance of NE marker expression. The cohort consisted of 551 primary ovarian tumors, including serous borderline tumors, low-grade serous carcinomas, high-grade serous carcinomas (HGSC), clear cell carcinomas, endometroid carcinomas, mucinous borderline tumors, and mucinous carcinomas. Immunohistochemical analysis was performed using antibodies against INSM1, synaptophysin, chromogranin, and CD56 on tissue microarray. Positivity for INSM1, synaptophysin, chromogranin, and CD56 was most frequently observed in mucinous tumors (48.7%, 26.0%, 41.5%, and 100%, respectively). The positivity for these NE markers was mostly restricted to nonmucinous elements distributed throughout the tumor. The mucinous borderline tumor and mucinous carcinomas groups had similar proportions of positivity (mucinous borderline tumor: 53%, mucinous carcinomas: 39%). In the other tumor types, except for HGSC, there was only focal expression (5%-10%) or negativity for NE markers. HGSC showed high CD56 expression (in 26% of cases). Survival analysis was only performed for CD56 in HGSC as this was the only group with sufficient positive cases, and it showed no prognostic significance. Except for mucinous tumors, expression of NE markers in non-NE ovarian epithelial tumors is low. CD56 expression in HGSC occurs frequently but is without diagnostic or prognostic value.

Immunohistochemical expression of PRAME in 485 cases of epithelial tubo-ovarian tumors

Preferentially expressed antigen of melanoma (PRAME) is a cancer/testis antigen selectively expressed in somatic tissues and various solid malignant tumors and is associated with poor prognostic outcome. Our research aimed to comprehensively compare its expression in a large cohort of tubo-ovarian epithelial tumors and examine its correlation with our clinico-pathologic data, as well as to assess its potential use in diagnostics and therapy.We examined 485 cases of epithelial tubo-ovarian tumors including 107 clear cell carcinomas (CCC), 52 endometroid carcinomas (EC), 103 high grade serous carcinomas (HGSC), 119 low grade serous carcinomas (LGSC)/micropapillary variant of serous borderline tumors (mSBT), and 104 cases of mucinous carcinomas (MC)/mucinous borderline tumors (MBT). The immunohistochemical analysis was performed using TMAs.The highest levels of expression were seen in EC (60%), HGSC (62%), and CCC (56%), while expression in LGSC/mSBT (4%) and MC/MBT (2%) was rare. The clinico-pathologic correlations and survival analysis showed no prognostic significance.The results of our study showed that PRAME is neither prognostic nor a suitable ancillary marker in the differential diagnosis of tubo-ovarian epithelial tumors. Nevertheless, knowledge about the PRAME expression may be important concerning its potential predictive significance, because targeting PRAME as a potential therapeutic option is currently under investigation.

A comprehensive immunohistochemical analysis of 26 markers in 250 cases of serous ovarian tumors

BACKGROUND

We examined a large cohort of serous tubo-ovarian tumors with 26 immunohistochemical markers, with the aim to assess their value for differential diagnosis and prognosis.

METHODS

Immunohistochemical analyses with 26 immunomarkers were performed on 250 primary tubo-ovarian tumors including 114 high grade serous carcinomas (HGSC), 97 low grade serous carcinomas (LGSC), and 39 serous borderline tumors (micropapillary variant, mSBT). The associations of overall positivity with clinicopathological characteristics were evaluated using the chi-squared test or Fisher's Exact test.

RESULTS

We found significantly different expression of p53, p16, ER, PR, PTEN, PAX2, Mammaglobin, RB1, Cyclin E1, stathmin, LMP2, L1CAM, CD44, and Ki67 in HGSCs compared to LGSCs. No significant differences were found between LGSC and mSBT. None of the other included markers (PAX8, ARID1A, HNF1B, Napsin A, CDX2, SATB2, MUC4, BRG1, AMACR, TTF1, BCOR, NTRK) showed any differences between the investigated serous tumors. Regarding the prognosis, only PR and stathmin showed a statistically significant prognostic meaning in LGSCs, with better overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) in cases positive for PR, and worse outcome (RFS) for stathmin. None of the study markers showed prognostic significance in HGSCs.

CONCLUSION

We provided an extensive immunohistochemical analysis of serous ovarian/tubo-ovarian tumors. Although we found some differences in the expression of some markers in HGSCs compared to LGSCs, only p53, p16, and Ki67 seem to be useful in real diagnostic practice. We also suggested the best discriminative cut-off for Ki67 (10% of positive tumor cells) for distinguishing HGSC from LGSC. We found prognostic significance of PR and stathmin in LGSCs. Moreover, the high expression of stathmin could also be of predictive value in ovarian carcinomas as target-specific anti-stathmin effectors are potential therapeutic targets.

Primary Mucinous Tumors of the Ovary: An Interobserver Reproducibility and Detailed Molecular Study Reveals Significant Overlap Between Diagnostic Categories

Primary ovarian mucinous tumors represent a heterogeneous group of neoplasms, and their diagnosis may be challenging. We analyzed 124 primary ovarian mucinous tumors originally diagnosed as mucinous borderline tumors (MBTs) or mucinous carcinomas (MCs), with an emphasis on interobserver diagnostic agreement and the potential for diagnostic support by molecular profiling using a next-generation sequencing targeted panel of 727 DNA and 147 RNA genes. Fourteen experienced pathologists independently assigned a diagnosis from preset options, based on a review of a single digitized slide from each tumor. After excluding 1 outlier participant, there was a moderate agreement in diagnosing the 124 cases when divided into 3 categories (κ = 0.524, for mucinous cystadenoma vs MBT vs MC). A perfect agreement for the distinction between mucinous cystadenoma/MBT as a combined category and MC was found in only 36.3% of the cases. Differentiating between MBTs and MCs with expansile invasion was particularly problematic. After a reclassification of the tumors into near-consensus diagnostic categories on the basis of the initial participant results, a comparison of molecular findings between the MBT and MC groups did not show major and unequivocal differences between MBTs and MCs or between MCs with expansile vs infiltrative pattern of invasion. In contrast, HER2 overexpression or amplification was found only in 5.3% of MBTs and in 35.3% of all MCs and in 45% of MCs with expansile invasion. Overall, HER2 alterations, including mutations, were found in 42.2% of MCs. KRAS mutations were found in 65.5% and PIK3CA mutations in 6% of MCs. In summary, although the diagnostic criteria are well-described, diagnostic agreement among our large group of experienced gynecologic pathologists was only moderate. Diagnostic categories showed a molecular overlap. Nonetheless, molecular profiling may prove to be therapeutically beneficial in advanced-stage, recurrent, or metastatic MCs.