Aline Talhouk1, Lien N Hoang2, Melissa K McConechy3, Quentin Nakonechny4, Joyce Leo4, Angela Cheng5, Samuel Leung5, Winnie Yang1, Amy Lum1, Martin Köbel6, Cheng-Han Lee7, Robert A Soslow8, David G Huntsman1, C Blake Gilks4, Jessica N McAlpine9. 1. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of British Columbia and BC Cancer Agency, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 2. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of British Columbia and Vancouver General Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; Department of Pathology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, United States. 3. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of British Columbia and BC Cancer Agency, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; Department of Human Genetics, McGill University, Research Institute of the McGill University Health Network, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. 4. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of British Columbia and Vancouver General Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 5. Genetic Pathology Evaluation Centre, Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 6. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Calgary Laboratory Services and University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 7. Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Royal Alexandra Hospital and University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada. 8. Department of Pathology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, United States. 9. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, University of British Columbia, 2775 Laurel St., 6th Floor, Vancouver, British Columbia V5Z 1M9, Canada. Electronic address: jessica.mcalpine@vch.ca.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Categorization and risk stratification of endometrial carcinomas is inadequate; histomorphologic assessment shows considerable interobserver variability, and risk of metastases and recurrence can only be derived after surgical staging. We have developed a Proactive Molecular Risk classification tool for Endometrial cancers (ProMisE) that identifies four distinct prognostic subgroups. Our objective was to assess whether molecular classification could be performed on diagnostic endometrial specimens obtained prior to surgical staging and its concordance with molecular classification performed on the subsequent hysterectomy specimen. METHODS: Sequencing of tumors for exonuclease domain mutations (EDMs) in POLE and immunohistochemistry for mismatch repair (MMR) proteins and p53 were applied to both pre- and post-staging archival specimens from 60 individuals to identify four molecular subgroups: MMR-D, POLE EDM, p53 wild type, p53 abn (abnormal). Three gynecologic subspecialty pathologists assigned histotype and grade to a subset of samples. Concordance of molecular and clinicopathologic subgroup assignments were determined, comparing biopsy/curetting to hysterectomy specimens. RESULTS: Complete molecular and pathologic categorization was achieved in 57 cases. Concordance metrics for pre- vs. post-staging endometrial samples categorized by ProMisE were highly favorable; average per ProMisE class sensitivity(0.9), specificity(0.96), PPV(0.9), NPV(0.96) and kappa statistic 0.86(95%CI, 0.72-0.93), indicating excellent agreement. We observed the highest level of concordance for 'p53 abn' tumors, the group associated with the worst prognosis. In contrast, grade and histotype assignment from original pathology reports pre- vs. post-staging showed only moderate levels of agreement (kappa=0.55 and 0.44 respectively); even with subspecialty pathology review only moderate levels of agreement were observed. CONCLUSION: Molecular classification can be achieved on diagnostic endometrial samples and accurately predicts the molecular features in the final hysterectomy specimens, demonstrating concordance superior to grade and histotype. This biologically relevant information, available at initial diagnosis, has the potential to inform management (surgery, adjuvant therapy) from the earliest time point in cancer care.
OBJECTIVE: Categorization and risk stratification of endometrial carcinomas is inadequate; histomorphologic assessment shows considerable interobserver variability, and risk of metastases and recurrence can only be derived after surgical staging. We have developed a Proactive Molecular Risk classification tool for Endometrial cancers (ProMisE) that identifies four distinct prognostic subgroups. Our objective was to assess whether molecular classification could be performed on diagnostic endometrial specimens obtained prior to surgical staging and its concordance with molecular classification performed on the subsequent hysterectomy specimen. METHODS: Sequencing of tumors for exonuclease domain mutations (EDMs) in POLE and immunohistochemistry for mismatch repair (MMR) proteins and p53 were applied to both pre- and post-staging archival specimens from 60 individuals to identify four molecular subgroups: MMR-D, POLE EDM, p53 wild type, p53 abn (abnormal). Three gynecologic subspecialty pathologists assigned histotype and grade to a subset of samples. Concordance of molecular and clinicopathologic subgroup assignments were determined, comparing biopsy/curetting to hysterectomy specimens. RESULTS: Complete molecular and pathologic categorization was achieved in 57 cases. Concordance metrics for pre- vs. post-staging endometrial samples categorized by ProMisE were highly favorable; average per ProMisE class sensitivity(0.9), specificity(0.96), PPV(0.9), NPV(0.96) and kappa statistic 0.86(95%CI, 0.72-0.93), indicating excellent agreement. We observed the highest level of concordance for 'p53 abn' tumors, the group associated with the worst prognosis. In contrast, grade and histotype assignment from original pathology reports pre- vs. post-staging showed only moderate levels of agreement (kappa=0.55 and 0.44 respectively); even with subspecialty pathology review only moderate levels of agreement were observed. CONCLUSION: Molecular classification can be achieved on diagnostic endometrial samples and accurately predicts the molecular features in the final hysterectomy specimens, demonstrating concordance superior to grade and histotype. This biologically relevant information, available at initial diagnosis, has the potential to inform management (surgery, adjuvant therapy) from the earliest time point in cancer care.
Authors: Lien N Hoang; Yow-Shan Lee; Anthony N Karnezis; Basile Tessier-Cloutier; Noorah Almandani; Mackenzie Coatham; C Blake Gilks; Robert A Soslow; Colin J R Stewart; Martin Köbel; Cheng-Han Lee Journal: Histopathology Date: 2016-07-05 Impact factor: 5.087
Authors: M K McConechy; A Talhouk; H H Li-Chang; S Leung; D G Huntsman; C B Gilks; J N McAlpine Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2015-01-28 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Lien N Hoang; Melissa K McConechy; Martin Köbel; Guangming Han; Marjan Rouzbahman; Ben Davidson; Julie Irving; Rola H Ali; Sam Leung; Jessica N McAlpine; Esther Oliva; Marisa R Nucci; Robert A Soslow; David G Huntsman; C Blake Gilks; Cheng-Han Lee Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: Jacques Ferlay; Isabelle Soerjomataram; Rajesh Dikshit; Sultan Eser; Colin Mathers; Marise Rebelo; Donald Maxwell Parkin; David Forman; Freddie Bray Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2014-10-09 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Kyu-Won Jung; Young-Joo Won; Hyun-Joo Kong; Chang-Mo Oh; Duk Hyoung Lee; Jin Soo Lee Journal: Cancer Res Treat Date: 2014-04-22 Impact factor: 4.679
Authors: L Helpman; R Kupets; A Covens; R S Saad; M A Khalifa; N Ismiil; Z Ghorab; V Dubé; S Nofech-Mozes Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2013-12-24 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Tjalling Bosse; Remi A Nout; Jessica N McAlpine; Melissa K McConechy; Heidi Britton; Yaser R Hussein; Carlene Gonzalez; Raji Ganesan; Jane C Steele; Beth T Harrison; Esther Oliva; August Vidal; Xavier Matias-Guiu; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Douglas A Levine; C Blake Gilks; Robert A Soslow Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2018-05 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: Marisa R Moroney; Kurtis D Davies; Adam C Wilberger; Jeanelle Sheeder; Miriam D Post; Amber A Berning; Christine Fisher; Carolyn Lefkowits; Saketh R Guntupalli; Kian Behbakht; Bradley R Corr Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2019-03-22 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Marie Boennelycke; Elke E M Peters; Alicia Léon-Castillo; Vincent T H B M Smit; Tjalling Bosse; Ib Jarle Christensen; Gitte Ørtoft; Claus Høgdall; Estrid Høgdall Journal: Virchows Arch Date: 2021-06-11 Impact factor: 4.064
Authors: Sheila E Segura; Silvana Pedra Nobre; Yaser R Hussein; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Britta Weigelt; Robert A Soslow; Deborah F DeLair Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2020-11 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: Lora H Ellenson; Britta Weigelt; Robert A Soslow; Amir Momeni-Boroujeni; Wissam Dahoud; Chad M Vanderbilt; Sarah Chiang; Rajmohan Murali; Eric V Rios-Doria; Kaled M Alektiar; Carol Aghajanian; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Marc Ladanyi Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2021-02-18 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Alaa Salah Jumaah; Hawraa Sahib Al-Haddad; Mais Muhammed Salem; Katherine Ann McAllister; Akeel Abed Yasseen Journal: J Pathol Transl Med Date: 2021-04-14