Primary colonic liposarcomatosis: report of a case with review of literature

LiposarcomaThe colon is a rare site of occurrence of liposarcoma, as either the primary site or by secondary involvement from a retroperitoneal liposarcoma. Liposarcomatosis denotes simultaneous occurrence of multiple liposarcomas. There are only 17 cases of primary colonic liposarcoma reported in the English literature—one of which was primary colonic liposarcomatosis. We depict the second case of primary colonic liposarcomatosis in a 57-year-old female who presented with abdominal swelling and pain. On exploratory laparotomy, two large masses were seen arising from the wall of the right colon along with multiple smaller masses attached to the colon. Right hemicolectomy with en bloc excision of the masses was performed along with hysterectomy and pelvic floor repair. Macroscopically, multiple exophytic masses and one endophytic mass were identified. The exophytic masses were of variable size and were found to hang from the colon by a thin pedicle simulating variable-sized appendices epiploicae. Histopathologically, the lesions showed the morphology of well-differentiated liposarcoma. This appears to be a case of primary colonic liposarcomatosis. There is only one other similar case reported in the English literature, to the best of our knowledge

Reporting trends, practices, and resource utilization in neuroendocrine tumors of the prostate gland: a survey among thirty-nine genitourinary pathologists

Background: Neuroendocrine differentiation in the prostate gland ranges from clinically insignificant neuroendocrine differentiation detected with markers in an otherwise conventional prostatic adenocarcinoma to a lethal high-grade small/large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma. The concept of neuroendocrine differentiation in prostatic adenocarcinoma has gained considerable importance due to its prognostic and therapeutic ramifications and pathologists play a pivotal role in its recognition. However, its awareness, reporting, and resource utilization practice patterns among pathologists are largely unknown. Methods: Representative examples of different spectrums of neuroendocrine differentiation along with a detailed questionnaire were shared among 39 urologic pathologists using the survey monkey software. Participants were specifically questioned about the use and awareness of the 2016 WHO classification of neuroendocrine tumors of the prostate, understanding of the clinical significance of each entity, and use of different immunohistochemical (IHC) markers. De-identified respondent data were analyzed. Results: A vast majority (90%) of the participants utilize IHC markers to confirm the diagnosis of small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma. A majority (87%) of the respondents were in agreement regarding the utilization of type of IHC markers for small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma for which 85% of the pathologists agreed that determination of the site of origin of a high-grade neuroendocrine carcinoma is not critical, as these are treated similarly. In the setting of mixed carcinomas, 62% of respondents indicated that they provide quantification and grading of the acinar component. There were varied responses regarding the prognostic implication of focal neuroendocrine cells in an otherwise conventional acinar adenocarcinoma and for Paneth cell-like differentiation. The classification of large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma was highly varied, with only 38% agreement in the illustrated case. Finally, despite the recommendation not to perform neuroendocrine markers in the absence of morphologic evidence of neuroendocrine differentiation, 62% would routinely utilize IHC in the work-up of a Gleason score 5 + 5 = 10 acinar adenocarcinoma and its differentiation from high-grade neuroendocrine carcinoma. Conclusion: There is a disparity in the practice utilization patterns among the urologic pathologists with regard to diagnosing high-grade neuroendocrine carcinoma and in understanding the clinical significance of focal neuroendocrine cells in an otherwise conventional acinar adenocarcinoma and Paneth cell-like neuroendocrine differentiation. There seems to have a trend towards overutilization of IHC to determine neuroendocrine differentiation in the absence of neuroendocrine features on morphology. The survey results suggest a need for further refinement and development of standardized guidelines for the classification and reporting of neuroendocrine differentiation in the prostate gland

Correlation of ROS1 (D4D6) Immunohistochemistry with ROS1 Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization Assay in a Contemporary Cohort of Pulmonary Adenocarcinomas

Abstract Sambit K. Mohanty Objective Repressor of Silencing (ROS1) gene rearrangement in the lung adenocarcinomas is one of the targetable mutually exclusive genomic alteration. Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), immunohistochemistry (IHC), next-generation sequencing, and reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction assays are generally used to detect ROS1 gene alterations. We evaluated the correlation between ROS1 IHC and FISH analysis considering FISH as the gold standard method to determine the utility of IHC as a screening method for lung adenocarcinoma. Materials and Methods A total of 374 advanced pulmonary adenocarcinoma patients were analyzed for ROS1 IHC on Ventana Benchmark XT platform using D4D6 rabbit monoclonal antibody. FISH assay was performed in parallel in all these cases using the Vysis ROS1 Break Apart FISH probe. Statistical Analysis The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios, positive and negative predictive values, and accuracy were evaluated. Results A total of 17 tumors were positive either by IHC or FISH analysis or both (true positive). Four tumors were positive by IHC (H-score range: 120–270), while negative on FISH analysis (false positive by IHC). One tumor was IHC negative, but positive by FISH analysis (false negative). The sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy were 94.4% (confidence interval [CI]: 72.71–99.86%), 63.6% (CI: 30.79–89.07%), 2.6 (CI: 1.18–5.72), 0.09 (CI: 0.01–0.62), 80.95% (CI: 65.86–90.35%), 87.5% (CI: 49.74–98.02%), and 82.76%, respectively. Conclusion ROS1 IHC has high sensitivity at a cost of lower specificity for the detection of ROS1 gene rearrangement. All IHC positive cases should undergo a confirmatory FISH test as this testing algorithm stands as a reliable and economic tool to screen ROS1 rearrangement in lung adenocarcinomas

Low-grade oncocytic tumour of the kidney is characterised by genetic alterations of TSC1, TSC2, MTOR or PIK3CA and consistent GATA3 positivity

Low-grade oncocytic tumour (LOT) of the kidney has recently emerged as a potential novel tumour type. Despite similarity to oncocytoma or eosinophilic chromophobe renal cell carcinoma, it shows diffuse keratin 7 immunohistochemistry (IHC) and negative KIT (CD117), which differs from both. We aimed to identify the molecular characteristics of these tumours. Seventeen tumours (one male, 16 female, nine previously published) fitting the original description of this entity (solid eosinophilic cell morphology, often with areas of tumour cells loosely stretched in oedematous stroma, and the above IHC features) were analysed with a next-generation sequencing panel of 324 cancer-associated genes from formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue. All tumours harboured at least one alteration in either TSC1 (n = 7, 41%), TSC2 (n = 2, 12%), MTOR (n = 5, 29%) or PIK3CA (n = 4, 24%). Four tumours harboured a second alteration, including two NF2, one each in conjunction with MTOR and TSC2 alterations, one PTEN with TSC1 alteration and one tumour with both MTOR and TSC1 alterations. No other renal cancer-related or recurring gene alterations were identified. In addition to the previously described IHC findings, 16 of 16 were positive for GATA3. Eleven patients with follow-up had no metastases or recurrent tumours. Recurrent tuberous sclerosis/MTOR pathway gene alterations in LOT support its consideration as a distinct morphological, immunohistochemical and genetic entity. PIK3CA is another pathway member that may be altered in these tumours. Further study will be necessary to determine whether tumour behaviour or syndromic associations differ from those of oncocytoma and chromophobe carcinoma, warranting different clinical consideration

Advances, recognition, and interpretation of molecular heterogeneity among conventional and subtype histology of urothelial carcinoma (UC): a survey among urologic pathologists and comprehensive review of the literature

Aims Urothelial carcinoma (UC) demonstrates significant molecular and histologic heterogeneity. The WHO 2022 classification has hinted at adding molecular signatures to the morphologic diagnosis. As morphology and associated molecular repertoire may potentially translate to choices of and response to therapy and relapse rate, broader acceptability of recognizing these key features among uropathologists is needed. This prompted an international survey to ascertain the practice patterns in classical/subtype UC among uropathologists across the globe. Methods and Results A survey instrument was shared among 98 uropathologists using SurveyMonkey software. Anonymized respondent data were analysed. The response rate was 85%. A majority were in concordance with the profiles of luminal (93%) and basal (82%) types. Opinion on the FGFR3 testing platform was variable. While 95% concurred that TERT promoter mutation is the key driver in UC, 72% had the opinion that APOBEC mutagenesis is the main signature in muscle invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). Uropathologists have divergent opinions on MIBC and ERCC2 mutations. Among the participants, 94% would quantify aggressive micropapillary and sarcomatoid histology, while 88% would reevaluate another transurethral resection of the bladder tumour specimen in nonmuscle invasive tumour with micropapillary, small cell, or sarcomatoid histology. A leading number agreed to specific molecular signatures of micropapillary (93%), plasmacytoid (97%), and small cell (86%) subtypes. Ninety‐six percent of participants agreed that a small‐cell component portends a more aggressive course and should be treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and 63% would perform HER2/neu testing only on oncologist's request in advanced tumours. Ninety percent agreed that microsatellite instability testing, although not a standard protocol, should be considered in young patients with upper tract UC. Eighty‐six percent agreed that UC with high tumour mutational burden would be a better candidate for immunotherapy. Conclusion In the era of precision medicine, enhanced understanding of molecular heterogeneity of UC will contribute to better therapeutic options, novel biomarker discovery, innovative management protocols, and outcomes. Our survey provides a broad perspective of pathologists' perceptions and experience regarding incorporation of histomolecular approaches to “personalize” therapy. Due to variable clinical adoption, there is a need for additional data using uniform study criteria. This will drive generation of best practice guidelines in this area for widespread and consistent clinical utility