PURPOSE: Individuals with adenocarcinoma of the ampulla of Vater demonstrate a broad range of outcomes, presumably because these cancers may arise from any one of the three epithelia that converge at that location. This variability poses challenges for clinical decision making and the development of novel therapeutic strategies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We assessed the potential clinical utility of histomolecular phenotypes defined using a combination of histopathology and protein expression (CDX2 and MUC1) in 208 patients from three independent cohorts who underwent surgical resection for adenocarcinoma of the ampulla of Vater. RESULTS: Histologic subtype and CDX2 and MUC1 expression were significant prognostic variables. Patients with a histomolecular pancreaticobiliary phenotype (CDX2 negative, MUC1 positive) segregated into a poor prognostic group in the training (hazard ratio [HR], 3.34; 95% CI, 1.69 to 6.62; P < .001) and both validation cohorts (HR, 5.65; 95% CI, 2.77 to 11.5; P < .001 and HR, 2.78; 95% CI, 1.25 to 7.17; P = .0119) compared with histomolecular nonpancreaticobiliary carcinomas. Further stratification by lymph node (LN) status defined three clinically relevant subgroups: one, patients with histomolecular nonpancreaticobiliary (intestinal) carcinoma without LN metastases who had an excellent prognosis; two, those with histomolecular pancreaticobiliary carcinoma with LN metastases who had a poor outcome; and three, the remainder of patients (nonpancreaticobiliary, LN positive or pancreaticobiliary, LN negative) who had an intermediate outcome. CONCLUSION: Histopathologic and molecular criteria combine to define clinically relevant histomolecular phenotypes of adenocarcinoma of the ampulla of Vater and potentially represent distinct diseases with significant implications for current therapeutic strategies, the ability to interpret past clinical trials, and future trial design.
PURPOSE: Individuals with adenocarcinoma of the ampulla of Vater demonstrate a broad range of outcomes, presumably because these cancers may arise from any one of the three epithelia that converge at that location. This variability poses challenges for clinical decision making and the development of novel therapeutic strategies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We assessed the potential clinical utility of histomolecular phenotypes defined using a combination of histopathology and protein expression (CDX2 and MUC1) in 208 patients from three independent cohorts who underwent surgical resection for adenocarcinoma of the ampulla of Vater. RESULTS: Histologic subtype and CDX2 and MUC1 expression were significant prognostic variables. Patients with a histomolecular pancreaticobiliary phenotype (CDX2 negative, MUC1 positive) segregated into a poor prognostic group in the training (hazard ratio [HR], 3.34; 95% CI, 1.69 to 6.62; P < .001) and both validation cohorts (HR, 5.65; 95% CI, 2.77 to 11.5; P < .001 and HR, 2.78; 95% CI, 1.25 to 7.17; P = .0119) compared with histomolecular nonpancreaticobiliary carcinomas. Further stratification by lymph node (LN) status defined three clinically relevant subgroups: one, patients with histomolecular nonpancreaticobiliary (intestinal) carcinoma without LN metastases who had an excellent prognosis; two, those with histomolecular pancreaticobiliary carcinoma with LN metastases who had a poor outcome; and three, the remainder of patients (nonpancreaticobiliary, LN positive or pancreaticobiliary, LN negative) who had an intermediate outcome. CONCLUSION: Histopathologic and molecular criteria combine to define clinically relevant histomolecular phenotypes of adenocarcinoma of the ampulla of Vater and potentially represent distinct diseases with significant implications for current therapeutic strategies, the ability to interpret past clinical trials, and future trial design.
Authors: Anca Nastase; Jin Yao Teo; Hong Lee Heng; Cedric Chuan Young Ng; Swe Swe Myint; Vikneswari Rajasegaran; Jia Liang Loh; Ser Yee Lee; London Lucien Ooi; Alexander Yaw Fui Chung; Pierce Kah Hoe Chow; Peng Chung Cheow; Wei Keat Wan; Rafy Azhar; Avery Khoo; Sam Xin Xiu; Syed Muhammad Fahmy Alkaff; Ioana Cutcutache; Jing Quan Lim; Choon Kiat Ong; Vlad Herlea; Simona Dima; Dan G Duda; Bin Tean Teh; Irinel Popescu; Tony Kiat Hon Lim Journal: Am J Cancer Res Date: 2017-03-01 Impact factor: 6.166
Authors: Winston Wong; Maeve A Lowery; Michael F Berger; Yelena Kemel; Barry Taylor; Ahmet Zehir; Preethi Srinivasan; Chaitanya Bandlamudi; Joanne Chou; Marinela Capanu; Anna Varghese; Kenneth H Yu; Christine A Iacobuzio-Donahue; Jinru Shia; David S Klimstra; William R Jarnagin; Zsofia K Stadler; Eileen M O'Reilly Journal: Cancer Date: 2019-01-08 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Chandana Javvaji; Jacob R Bledsoe; Lloyd Hutchinson; Ediz F Cosar; Lacey J McIntosh; Venu G Bathini Journal: J Gastrointest Cancer Date: 2020-03
Authors: Michelle D Reid; Serdar Balci; Nobuyuki Ohike; Yue Xue; Grace E Kim; Takuma Tajiri; Bahar Memis; Ipek Coban; Anil Dolgun; Alyssa M Krasinskas; Olca Basturk; David A Kooby; Juan M Sarmiento; Shishir K Maithel; Bassel F El-Rayes; Volkan Adsay Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2016-09-02 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: Brett L Ecker; Charles M Vollmer; Stephen W Behrman; Valentina Allegrini; John Aversa; Chad G Ball; Courtney E Barrows; Adam C Berger; Martha N Cagigas; John D Christein; Elijah Dixon; William E Fisher; Mollie Freedman-Weiss; Francisco Guzman-Pruneda; Robert H Hollis; Michael G House; Tara S Kent; Stacy J Kowalsky; Giuseppe Malleo; Ronald R Salem; Roberto Salvia; Carl R Schmidt; Thomas F Seykora; Richard Zheng; Amer H Zureikat; Paxton V Dickson Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2019-08-01 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Jon M Davison; Shane T Ellis; Tyler J Foxwell; James D Luketich; Michael K Gibson; Shih-Fan Kuan; Katie S Nason Journal: Hum Pathol Date: 2013-10-30 Impact factor: 3.466