| Literature DB >> 35897708 |
Ivonne A Montes-Mojarro1, Saki Hassas1, Sina Staehle1, Philip Sander1, Niklas Harland2, Lina Maria Serna-Higuita3, Irina Bonzheim1, Hans Bösmüller1, Arnulf Stenzl2, Falko Fend1.
Abstract
Diagnosis and grading of non-invasive papillary urothelial tumors according to the current WHO classification poses some challenges for pathologists. The diagnostic reproducibility of separating low-grade and high-grade lesions is low, which impacts their clinical management. Whereas papillary urothelial neoplasms with low malignant potential (PUN-LMP) and low-grade papillary non-invasive carcinoma (LG-PUC) are comparable and show frequent local recurrence but rarely metastasize, high-grade papillary non-invasive carcinoma (HG-PUC) has a poor prognosis. The main objective of this work is to develop a multiparametric classification to unambiguously distinguish low-grade and high-grade tumors, considering immunohistochemical stains for p53, FGFR3, CK20, MIB-1, p16, p21 and p-HH3, and pathogenic mutations in TP53, FGFR3, TP53, ERCC2, PIK3CA, PTEN and STAG2. We reviewed and analyzed the clinical and histological data of 45 patients with a consensus diagnosis of PUN-LMP (n = 8), non-invasive LG-PUC (n = 23), and HG-PUC (n = 14). The proliferation index and mitotic count assessed with MIB-1 and P-HH3 staining, respectively correlated with grading and clinical behavior. Targeted sequencing confirmed frequent FGFR3 mutations in non-invasive papillary tumors and identified mutations in TP53 as high-risk. Cluster analysis of the different immunohistochemical and molecular parameters allowed a clear separation in two different clusters: cluster 1 corresponding to PUN-LMP and LG-PUC (low MIB-1 and mitotic count/FGFR3 and STAG2 mutations) and cluster 2, HG-PUC (high MIB-1 and mitosis count/CK20 +++ expression, FGFR3 WT and TP53 mutation). Further analysis is required to validate and analyze the reproducibility of these clusters and their biological and clinical implication.Entities:
Keywords: classification; high-grade papillary urothelial carcinoma; non-invasive low-grade papillary urothelial carcinoma; urothelial neoplasm of low malignant potential
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35897708 PMCID: PMC9330009 DOI: 10.3390/ijms23158133
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 6.208
Clinical characteristics of cases with non-invasive urothelial papillary neoplasia.
| Median age (range) | 75 years (50–95) |
| Gender | |
| Male | 33 (73.3) |
| Female | 12 (26.6) |
| M:F Ratio | 2.75:1 |
| Tumor Stage, TNM | |
| pTa | 39 (86.6) |
| pTa and pT1 | 6 (13.3) |
| Localization of tumor | |
| 2 or more locations | 19 (42.2) |
| Lateral walls | 10 (22.2) |
| Posterior wall | 6 (13.3) |
| Trigonum | 3 (6.6) |
| Neck/Apex | 3 (6.6) |
| Dome of the bladder | 2 (4.4) |
| Anterior wall | 2 (4.4) |
| Detrusor muscle in the histological slides | 30 (66.7) |
| Immediate therapy after diagnosis * ( | |
| No therapy | 19 (43.2) |
| Immediate intravesical instillation of MMC | 12 (27.3) |
| Re-TUR-BT | 13 (29.5) |
| Recurrence in two-year follow-up % * | 48.4% |
| Further therapy during the clinical course | |
| No further therapy | 12 (27.3) |
| Further BCG or MMC instillations | 10 (22.7) |
| TUR-B | 31 (70.5) |
| Cystectomy and TUR-B: | 2 (4.5) |
| Cystectomy, TUR-B and BCG therapy | 2 (4.5) |
MMC: Mitomycin C; BCG, Bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG); TUR-BT, transurethral resection of bladder tumor. * Percentages are calculated for 44 patients since some clinical data were not available for one case.
Interobserver variability among the histological categories of the WHO 2004/2016.
| Grade | ODR | Diagnosis P 1 | Diagnosis P 2 | Diagnosis | Consensus | Interobserver Variability (%) | Fleiss Kappa |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PUN-LMP | 18 (40%) | 16 (35.6%) | 8 (17.8%) | 6 (13.3%) | 8 (17.8%) | 57% | 0.43 ** |
| LG-PUC | 14 (31.1%) | 15 (33.3%) | 22 (48.9%) | 27 (60%) | 23 (51.1%) | 67% | 0.41 ** |
| HG-PUC | 13 (28.9%) | 14 (31.1%) | 15 (33.3%) | 12 (26.7%) | 14 (31.1%) | 87% | 0.81 ** |
PUN-LMP, papillary urothelial neoplasia of low malignant potential; LG-PUC, low-grade urothelial papillary carcinoma; HG-PUC, high-grade urothelial papillary carcinoma; P 1, 2, 3, pathologist 1, 2 and 3. ** p value < 0.001 Fleiss Kappa.
Figure 1Histological grading and relapse-free survival. (A). Representative histology images displaying the main features of different tumor grades (PUN-LMP, LG-PUC and HG-PUC). (B). Kaplan–Meier analysis of relapse-free survival comparing tumor grades by consensus diagnosis. (C). Kaplan–Meier analysis of relapse-free survival comparing TNM classification and tumor grades. PUN-LMP, papillary urothelial neoplasia of low malignant potential; LG-PUC, low-grade urothelial papillary carcinoma; HG-PUC, high-grade urothelial papillary carcinoma.
Figure 2Immunohistochemical features. (A). Spearman’s rank correlation matrix and correlation significances of immunohistochemical variables. Values show the Spearman rank results; blue colors show positive correlations and red colors negative correlations. (B). Violin plots comparing the number of mitotic counts in 10 high power fields (HPF) stained with p-HH3 among non-invasive PUC categories. (C). Violin plots of the different histoscores of the immunohistochemistry markers, denoting the non-invasive PUC entities. For statistical analysis unpaired t-test was used, ns= not significant, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, **** p < 0.0001.
Histoscores of cases according to the histological grading.
| CK20 | Mib-1 | p-HH3 * | FGFR3 | p16 | p21 | p53 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PUN-LMP | 60 | 3 | 2 | 9 | 10 | 150 | 90 |
| LG-PUC | 202 | 25 | 10 | 70 | 85 | 110 | 127.5 |
| HG-PUC | 225 | 90 | 38.5 | 26.3 | 25 | 97.5 | 142.5 |
| 0.027 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.032 | 0.065 | <0.001 | 0.066 |
Histoscore median (p25–p75); PUN-LMP, Papillary Urothelial Neoplasia of low malignant potential; LG-PUC, low-grade urothelial papillary carcinoma; HG-PUC, high-grade urothelial papillary carcinoma. * Number of mitoses in 10 high power fields (HPF).
Figure 3(A). Overview of the mutational and immunohistochemical results per diagnostic category. (B). Cluster analysis of two and three subgroups (right and left, respectively). (C). Kaplan–Meier plots of relapse-free survival using the cluster analysis displayed in cluster plots.
Comparison of protein and mutational status among the clusters.
| Marker | Cluster 1 | Cluster 2 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Immunohistochemistry | median (p25–p75) | median (p25–p75) | Wilcoxon rank sum test |
| CK20 | 160 (80–240) | 225 (172.5–270.0) | 0.150 |
| p53 | 110 (80–160) | 158.7 (107.5–212.5) | 0.013 |
| MIB-1 | 15 (3–33.9) | 90 (68.5–97.5) | <0.001 |
| FGFR3 | 60 (1–80) | 3 (1.0–65.0) | 0.101 |
| p-HH3 * | 8 (3–12) | 38.5 (25.7–51.5) | <0.001 |
| Mutational status | χ2 test | ||
|
| 18 (40.0%) | 3 (6.0%) | 0.028 |
|
| 8 (17.2%) | 1 (2.2% | 0.236 |
|
| 2 (4.4%) | 5 (11.1%) | 0.023 |
|
| 7 (15.5%) | 4 (8.8%) | 0.717 |
|
| 10 (22.2%) | 3 (6.6%) | 0.724 |
Immunohistochemistry: data are expressed as median (p25–p75) of histoscore values or (*) number of mitoses in 10 HPF. Mutational status is represented by number of mutated cases (%).