Abnormal Vaginal Cytology after Total Laparoscopic Hysterectomy in Patients with Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia

To explore the incidence of abnormal vaginal cytology after total laparoscopic hysterectomy for the treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3, we retrospectively analyzed the medical records of patients treated at NHO Shikoku Cancer Center (Japan) in 2014-2019. The cases of 99 patients who underwent a laparoscopic (n=36) or open (n=63) hysterectomy and postoperative follow-up were examined. Abnormal vaginal cytology was detected in 13.9% (5/36) of the laparoscopic-surgery (LS) group and 14.3% (9/63) of the open-surgery (OS) group. A vaginal biopsy was performed at the physicians’ discretion; one LS patient and six OS patients were diagnosed with vaginal intraepithelial neoplasia. The cumulative incidence of abnormal vaginal cytology at 3 years post-hysterectomy was 21.4% (LS group) and 20.5% (OS group), a nonsignificant difference. A multivariate analysis showed that age > 50 years was the only independent risk factor for abnormal vaginal cytology among the covariates examined including age; body mass index; histories of vaginal delivery, abdominal surgery, and smoking; and surgical approach (hazard ratio 8.11; 95% confidence interval 1.73-37.98; p=0.01). These results suggest that the occurrence of abnormal vaginal cytology after a hysterectomy may not be influenced by the laparoscopic procedure but is associated with older age

Retroperitoneal leiomyosarcoma in a female patient with a germline splicing variant RAD51D c.904-2A > T: a case report

Background RAD51D (RAD51 paralog D) is an intermediate cancer susceptibility gene for primary ovarian cancer, including fallopian tube and peritoneal carcinomas and breast cancer. Although gynecological non-epithelial tumors such as uterine sarcomas are associated with genomic instability, including BRCA impairment, there is no clear evidence of the relationship between RAD51D variants and the risk of sarcoma development. Case presentation A Japanese woman in her 50s underwent multiple surgical resections and several regimens of chemotherapy for tumors that originated in the retroperitoneum and recurred in the peritoneum over a clinical course of approximately 4 years. The peritoneal tumor was histologically diagnosed as a leiomyosarcoma and was genetically identified to show a splice variant of RAD51D c.904-2A > T [NM_002878] through tumor profiling performed as a part of cancer precision medicine. The confirmatory genetic test performed after genetic counseling revealed that the RAD51D splicing variant detected in her tumor was of germline origin. In silico analyses supported the possible pathogenicity of the detected splice variant of RAD51D with a predicted attenuation in mRNA transcription and truncated protein production due to frameshifting, which was attributed to a single-nucleotide alteration in the splicing acceptor site at the 3 '-end of intron 9 of RAD51D. Considering her unfavorable clinical outcome, which showed a highly aggressive phenotype of leiomyosarcoma with altered RAD51D, this case provided novel evidence for the relationship of a RAD51D splicing variant with malignant tumor development or progression. We report the findings of this rare case with possible involvement of the germline variant of RAD51D c.904-2A > T as a potential predisposing factor for malignant tumors, including leiomyosarcoma. Conclusions We present the findings of a case of leiomyosarcoma in the peritoneum of a female patient with a novel germline splicing variant of RAD51D as potential evidence for the pathogenicity of the variant and its involvement in the risk of sarcoma etiology and/or development. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first case report describing a leiomyosarcoma carrying a germline RAD51D splicing variant and elucidating its pathogenicity on the basis of computational prediction of the impairment of normal transcription and the presumed loss of functional protein production

Handling of Germline Findings in Clinical Comprehensive Cancer Genomic Profiling

Patients found to have presumed germline pathogenic variants (PGPVs) during comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) require genetic counseling (GC) referrals. We retrospectively investigated the outcomes of patients with PGPVs. Among 159 patients who underwent CGP, we recommended GC for the 16 patients with PGPVs (3 with [FG group] and 13 without [G Group] a family/personal history of hereditary cancer) as well as for the 8 patients with no PGPVs, but a history (F group); 2 (67%), 5 (38%), and 3 (38%) patients received GC in the FG, G, and F groups, respectively. Germline testing results were positive in 1 and 2 patients of the FG and G groups, respectively. Among the patients recommended for GC, 58% did not receive GC due to lack of interest, poor performance status, or death. CGP contributes to the identification of germline variants in patients without a history of hereditary cancer. However, the proportion of patients who undergo GC should be improved

Lynch syndrome-associated endometrial carcinoma with MLH1 germline mutation and MLH1 promoter hypermethylation: a case report and literature review

Abstract Background Lynch syndrome is an autosomal dominant inherited disease caused by germline mutations in mismatch repair genes. Analysis for microsatellite instability (MSI) and immunohistochemistry (IHC) of protein expressions of disease-associated genes is used to screen for Lynch syndrome in endometrial cancer patients. When losses of both MLH1 and PMS2 proteins are observed by IHC, MLH1 promoter methylation analysis is conducted to distinguish Lynch syndrome-associated endometrial cancer from sporadic cancer. Case presentation Here we report a woman who developed endometrial cancer at the age of 49 years. She had a family history of colorectal cancer (first-degree relative aged 52 years) and stomach cancer (second-degree relative with the age of onset unknown). No other family history was present, and she failed to meet the Amsterdam II criteria for the diagnosis of Lynch syndrome. Losses of MLH1 and PMS2, but not MSH2 and MSH6, proteins were observed by IHC in endometrial cancer tissues. Because MLH1 promoter hypermethylation was detected in endometrial cancer tissue samples, the epigenetic silencing of MLH1 was suspected as the cause of the protein loss. However, because of the early onset of endometrial cancer and the positive family history, a diagnosis of Lynch syndrome was also suspected. Therefore, we provided her with genetic counseling. After obtaining her consent, MLH1 promoter methylation testing and genetic testing of peripheral blood were performed. MLH1 promoter methylation was not observed in peripheral blood. However, genetic testing revealed a large deletion of exon 5 in MLH1; thus, we diagnosed the presence of Lynch syndrome. Conclusions Both MLH1 germline mutation and MLH1 promoter hypermethylation may be observed in endometrial cancer. Therefore, even if MLH1 promoter hypermethylation is detected, a diagnosis of Lynch syndrome cannot be excluded