Enrico Martin1,2, Ibtissam Acem1, Dirk J Grünhagen1, Judith V M G Bovée3, Cornelis Verhoef1. 1. Department of Surgical Oncology, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands. 2. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands. 3. Department of Pathology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors (MPNSTs) are aggressive soft tissue sarcomas with dismal prognosis. Pathological and genetic markers may predict more aggressive behavior in MPNSTs but have uncommonly been investigated, and few are used in daily practice. This study reviews the prognostic value of immunohistochemical markers and genetic alterations in MPNST. METHODS: A systematic search was performed in PubMed and Embase databases according to the PRISMA guidelines. Search terms related to 'MPNST' and 'prognostic' were used. Studies investigating the association of immunohistochemical markers or genetic alterations with prognosis were included. Qualitative synthesis was performed on all studies. A distinction was made between univariable and multivariable associations. RESULTS: Forty-six studies were included after full-text screening. Sixty-seven different immunohistochemical markers were investigated. Absence of S100 and H3K27me3 and high Ki67 and p53 staining was most commonly independently associated with worse survival and disease-free survival. Several genetic alterations were investigated as well with varying association to survival. TP53, CDK4, RASSF1A alterations were independently associated with worse survival, as well as changes in chromosomal length in Xp, 10q, and 16p. CONCLUSIONS: MPNSTs harbor complex and heterogeneous biology. Immunohistochemical markers and genetic alterations have variable prognostic value. Absence of S100 and H3K27me3 and increased Ki67 can be of prognostic value. Alterations in TP53 or increase in p53 staining may distinguish MPNSTs with worse outcomes. Genetic alterations and staining of other cell cycle regulatory and Ras pathway proteins may also help stratifying patients with worse outcomes. A combination of markers can increase the prognostic value.
BACKGROUND: Malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors (MPNSTs) are aggressive soft tissue sarcomas with dismal prognosis. Pathological and genetic markers may predict more aggressive behavior in MPNSTs but have uncommonly been investigated, and few are used in daily practice. This study reviews the prognostic value of immunohistochemical markers and genetic alterations in MPNST. METHODS: A systematic search was performed in PubMed and Embase databases according to the PRISMA guidelines. Search terms related to 'MPNST' and 'prognostic' were used. Studies investigating the association of immunohistochemical markers or genetic alterations with prognosis were included. Qualitative synthesis was performed on all studies. A distinction was made between univariable and multivariable associations. RESULTS: Forty-six studies were included after full-text screening. Sixty-seven different immunohistochemical markers were investigated. Absence of S100 and H3K27me3 and high Ki67 and p53 staining was most commonly independently associated with worse survival and disease-free survival. Several genetic alterations were investigated as well with varying association to survival. TP53, CDK4, RASSF1A alterations were independently associated with worse survival, as well as changes in chromosomal length in Xp, 10q, and 16p. CONCLUSIONS: MPNSTs harbor complex and heterogeneous biology. Immunohistochemical markers and genetic alterations have variable prognostic value. Absence of S100 and H3K27me3 and increased Ki67 can be of prognostic value. Alterations in TP53 or increase in p53 staining may distinguish MPNSTs with worse outcomes. Genetic alterations and staining of other cell cycle regulatory and Ras pathway proteins may also help stratifying patients with worse outcomes. A combination of markers can increase the prognostic value.
Authors: Alessandro Gronchi; Stefano Ferrari; Vittorio Quagliuolo; Javier Martin Broto; Antonio Lopez Pousa; Giovanni Grignani; Umberto Basso; Jean-Yves Blay; Oscar Tendero; Robert Diaz Beveridge; Virginia Ferraresi; Iwona Lugowska; Domenico Franco Merlo; Valeria Fontana; Emanuela Marchesi; Davide Maria Donati; Elena Palassini; Emanuela Palmerini; Rita De Sanctis; Carlo Morosi; Silvia Stacchiotti; Silvia Bagué; Jean Michelle Coindre; Angelo Paolo Dei Tos; Piero Picci; Paolo Bruzzi; Paolo Giovanni Casali Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2017-05-09 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Markku M Miettinen; Cristina R Antonescu; Christopher D M Fletcher; Aerang Kim; Alexander J Lazar; Martha M Quezado; Karlyne M Reilly; Anat Stemmer-Rachamimov; Douglas R Stewart; David Viskochil; Brigitte Widemann; Arie Perry Journal: Hum Pathol Date: 2017-05-24 Impact factor: 3.466
Authors: Helge R Brekke; Franclim R Ribeiro; Matthias Kolberg; Trude H Agesen; Guro E Lind; Mette Eknaes; Kirsten S Hall; Bodil Bjerkehagen; Eva van den Berg; Manuel R Teixeira; Nils Mandahl; Sigbjørn Smeland; Fredrik Mertens; Rolf I Skotheim; Ragnhild A Lothe Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-02-16 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jinsheng Yu; Hrishikesh Deshmukh; Jacqueline E Payton; Christopher Dunham; Bernd W Scheithauer; Tarik Tihan; Richard A Prayson; Abhijit Guha; Julia A Bridge; Rosalie E Ferner; Guy M Lindberg; Rebecca J Gutmann; Ryan J Emnett; Lorena Salavaggione; David H Gutmann; Rakesh Nagarajan; Mark A Watson; Arie Perry Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2011-02-16 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Stine H Kresse; Magne Skårn; Hege O Ohnstad; Heidi M Namløs; Bodil Bjerkehagen; Ola Myklebost; Leonardo A Meza-Zepeda Journal: Mol Cancer Date: 2008-06-03 Impact factor: 27.401