Aymara Mas1, Roberto Alonso2, Tamara Garrido-Gómez2, Patricia Escorcia2, Beatriz Montero3, Jorge Jiménez-Almazán2, Julio Martín2, Nuria Pellicer4, Javier Monleón4, Carlos Simón5. 1. Igenomix Foundation-Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria INCLIVA, Valencia, Spain; Reproductive Medicine Department of Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria La Fe, Valencia, Spain. Electronic address: aymara.mas@igenomix.com. 2. Igenomix Foundation-Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria INCLIVA, Valencia, Spain. 3. Department of Pathology Hospital La Fe, Valencia, Spain. 4. Reproductive Medicine Department of Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria La Fe, Valencia, Spain. 5. Igenomix Foundation-Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria INCLIVA, Valencia, Spain; Department of Pediatrics, Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although uterine leiomyomas and leiomyosarcomas are considered biologically unrelated tumors, they share morphologic and histologic characteristics that complicate their differential diagnosis. The long-term therapeutic option for leiomyoma is laparoscopic myomectomy with morcellation, particularly for patients who wish to preserve their fertility. However, because of the potential dissemination of undiagnosed or hidden leiomyosarcoma from morcellation, there is a need to develop a preoperative assessment of malignancy risk. OBJECTIVE: Through an integrated comparative genomic and transcriptomic analysis, we aim to identify differential genetic targets in leiomyomas vs leiomyosarcomas using next-generation sequencing as the first step toward preoperative differential diagnosis. STUDY DESIGN: Targeted sequencing of DNA and RNA coding regions for solid tumor-associated genes was performed on formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded samples from 13 leiomyomas and 13 leiomyosarcoma cases. DNA sequencing was used to identify copy number variations, single-nucleotide variants, and small insertions/deletions. RNA sequencing was used to identify gene fusions, splice variants, and/or differential gene expression profiles. RESULTS: In leiomyosarcomas, tumor mutation burden was higher in terms of copy number variations, single nucleotide variants, small insertions/deletions, and gene fusions compared with leiomyomas. For copy number variations, 20 genes were affected by deletions in leiomyosarcomas, compared with 6 observed losses in leiomyomas. Gains (duplications) were identified in 19 genes in leiomyosarcomas, but only 3 genes in leiomyomas. The most common mutations (single-nucleotide variants and insertions/deletions) for leiomyosarcomas were identified in 105 genes of all analyzed leiomyosarcomas; 82 genes were affected in leiomyomas. Of note, 1 tumor previously diagnosed as leiomyosarcoma was established as inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor along this study with a novel ALK-TNS1 fusion. Finally, a differential transcriptomic profile was observed for 11 of 55 genes analyzed in leiomyosarcomas; 8.5% of initially diagnosed leiomyosarcomas showed high-confidence, novel gene fusions that were associated with these tumors. CONCLUSION: Through integrated comparative genomic and transcriptomic analyses, we identified novel differential genetic targets that potentially differentiate leiomyosarcomas and leiomyomas. This provides a new insight into the differential diagnosis of these myometrial tumors.
BACKGROUND: Although uterine leiomyomas and leiomyosarcomas are considered biologically unrelated tumors, they share morphologic and histologic characteristics that complicate their differential diagnosis. The long-term therapeutic option for leiomyoma is laparoscopic myomectomy with morcellation, particularly for patients who wish to preserve their fertility. However, because of the potential dissemination of undiagnosed or hidden leiomyosarcoma from morcellation, there is a need to develop a preoperative assessment of malignancy risk. OBJECTIVE: Through an integrated comparative genomic and transcriptomic analysis, we aim to identify differential genetic targets in leiomyomas vs leiomyosarcomas using next-generation sequencing as the first step toward preoperative differential diagnosis. STUDY DESIGN: Targeted sequencing of DNA and RNA coding regions for solid tumor-associated genes was performed on formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded samples from 13 leiomyomas and 13 leiomyosarcoma cases. DNA sequencing was used to identify copy number variations, single-nucleotide variants, and small insertions/deletions. RNA sequencing was used to identify gene fusions, splice variants, and/or differential gene expression profiles. RESULTS: In leiomyosarcomas, tumor mutation burden was higher in terms of copy number variations, single nucleotide variants, small insertions/deletions, and gene fusions compared with leiomyomas. For copy number variations, 20 genes were affected by deletions in leiomyosarcomas, compared with 6 observed losses in leiomyomas. Gains (duplications) were identified in 19 genes in leiomyosarcomas, but only 3 genes in leiomyomas. The most common mutations (single-nucleotide variants and insertions/deletions) for leiomyosarcomas were identified in 105 genes of all analyzed leiomyosarcomas; 82 genes were affected in leiomyomas. Of note, 1 tumor previously diagnosed as leiomyosarcoma was established as inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor along this study with a novel ALK-TNS1 fusion. Finally, a differential transcriptomic profile was observed for 11 of 55 genes analyzed in leiomyosarcomas; 8.5% of initially diagnosed leiomyosarcomas showed high-confidence, novel gene fusions that were associated with these tumors. CONCLUSION: Through integrated comparative genomic and transcriptomic analyses, we identified novel differential genetic targets that potentially differentiate leiomyosarcomas and leiomyomas. This provides a new insight into the differential diagnosis of these myometrial tumors.
Authors: Mrinal M Gounder; Narasimhan P Agaram; Sally E Trabucco; Victoria Robinson; Richard A Ferraro; Sherri Z Millis; Anita Krishnan; Jessica Lee; Steven Attia; Wassim Abida; Alexander Drilon; Ping Chi; Sandra P D' Angelo; Mark A Dickson; Mary Lou Keohan; Ciara M Kelly; Mark Agulnik; Sant P Chawla; Edwin Choy; Rashmi Chugh; Christian F Meyer; Parvathi A Myer; Jessica L Moore; Ross A Okimoto; Raphael E Pollock; Vinod Ravi; Arun S Singh; Neeta Somaiah; Andrew J Wagner; John H Healey; Garrett M Frampton; Jeffrey M Venstrom; Jeffrey S Ross; Marc Ladanyi; Samuel Singer; Murray F Brennan; Gary K Schwartz; Alexander J Lazar; David M Thomas; Robert G Maki; William D Tap; Siraj M Ali; Dexter X Jin Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2022-06-15 Impact factor: 17.694
Authors: Jean V Fischer; Melissa Mejia-Bautista; Brian Vadasz; Ping Yin; Serdar Bulun; Edward J Tanner; Xinyan Lu; Jian-Jun Wei Journal: Int J Gynecol Pathol Date: 2022-01-31 Impact factor: 3.326
Authors: Qiwei Yang; Michal Ciebiera; Maria Victoria Bariani; Mohamed Ali; Hoda Elkafas; Thomas G Boyer; Ayman Al-Hendy Journal: Endocr Rev Date: 2022-07-13 Impact factor: 25.261
Authors: Erica V Carballo; Tra V Pham; Gulisa Turashvili; Krisztina Hanley; Kristen D Starbuck; Jane L Meisel Journal: Gynecol Oncol Rep Date: 2022-08-17