Endometrial carcinoma (ECA) is frequently hormonally driven and can be treated with endocrine-based therapy, yet hormone receptor status is not routinely assessed. In particular, little is known about the significance of androgen receptor (AR) in ECA. Androgen has antiproliferative effects in the healthy endometrium and could serve a similar role to progesterone in curbing the progression of estrogen-dependent neoplasia. There may also be a subset of ECA that benefits from androgen antagonistic therapy. We herein investigate AR expression across ECA subtypes and compare its expression to estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR). Immunohistochemical staining for AR, ER, and PR was performed on an endometrial tissue microarray containing 50 ECA with a variety of morphologic subtypes as well as 20 benign and 9 atypical hyperplastic endometria. AR was expressed by 54% (27/50) of ECA including 60% of low grade endometrioid carcinomas, 70% high grade endometrioid carcinomas, 70% serous carcinomas, 50% carcinosarcomas, and 20% clear cell carcinomas. High AR expression was chiefly restricted to a subset of serous carcinomas (50%). AR expression occurred most often in concert with ER staining, although 5 high grade cancers (1 serous carcinoma, 4 carcinosarcomas) showed AR expression in the absence of ER. In summary, AR positivity is seen in over half of ECA in our study, including the majority of low grade endometrioid carcinomas, high grade endometrioid carcinomas, and serous carcinomas. High level expression is seen in half of serous carcinomas and a subset of serous carcinomas and carcinosarcomas show some degree of AR staining in the absence of ER, suggesting a possible role for androgen inhibition in treatment of these cases.
Mismatch repair-deficient endometrial carcinomas are optimal candidates for immunotherapy given their high neoantigen loads, robust lymphoid infiltrates, and frequent PD-L1 expression. However, co-opting the PD-1/PD-L1 pathway is just one mechanism that tumors can utilize to evade host immunity. Another immune modulatory molecule that has been demonstrated in endometrial carcinoma is indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase (IDO). We herein evaluate IDO expression in 60 endometrial carcinomas and assess results in relation to PD-L1 and mismatch repair status. IDO immunohistochemistry was performed on 60 endometrial carcinomas (20 Lynch syndrome (LS)-associated, 20 MLH1 promoter hypermethylated, and 20 mismatch repair-intact). Eight-five percent of endometrial carcinomas showed IDO tumor staining in >1% of cells. Twenty-five percent were positive in >25% of tumor cells and only 7% exceeded 50% staining. Mismatch repair-deficient cancers were more likely than mismatch repair-intact cancers to be >25% IDO-positive (35% vs. 5% p = 0.024). Differences were amplified when Lynch syndrome-associated cases were evaluated in isolation (50% Lynch syndrome-associated vs. 10% mismatch repair-intact and MLH1-hypermethylated, p = 0.001). Of the four cases showing >50% staining, three were Lynch syndrome-associated and one was MLH1-hypermethylated; no mismatch repair-intact cases had >50% staining. Forty-three percent of IDO-positive tumors were also positive for PD-L1, whereas only two cases showed tumoral PD-L1 in the absence of IDO. In summary, IDO expression is prevalent in endometrial carcinomas and diffuse staining is significantly more common in mismatch repair-deficient cancers, particularly Lynch syndrome-associated cases. Given that the majority of PD-L1 positive cancers also express IDO, synergistic combination therapy with anti-IDO and anti-PD1/PD-L1 may be relevant in this tumor type. Furthermore, anti-IDO therapy may be an option for a small subset of mismatch repair-intact cancers.
Background: Few studies have evaluated diagnostic yield of small volume biopsies (SVB) for the diagnosis and management of follicular lymphoma (FL). Methods:The authors performed a multi-institutional retrospective analysis of SVBs including fine-needle aspiration (FNA) and needle core biopsy (NCB) for initial FL diagnosis and suspected recurrence or transformation of FL. A total of 676This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
Small-volume biopsies (SVBs) including fine-needle aspiration (FNA), cell block, and needle core biopsies (NCB) are increasingly utilized to diagnose and guide the clinical management of lymphoma. We established a multi-institutional interdisciplinary collaboration of cytopathologists, hematopathologists, and oncologists focused on the role of SVB in the management of patients with follicular lymphoma (FL). To assess the performance characteristics of SVB in this setting, we evaluated all consecutive SVBs performed for clinical indications of initial diagnosis, recurrence, or transformation of FL over a 5-year period and focused on the 182 that had at least one subsequent biopsy within 3 months as part of the same clinical work-up. The most common outcome of a subsequent biopsy as part of the same clinical work-up was a more specific diagnosis usually assigning the pathologic grade (111/182, 61%), followed by a complete agreement with the SVB (24/182, 13%), and change from nondiagnostic on initial biopsy to diagnostic on subsequent biopsy (21/182, 12%). A minority resulted in a diagnostic change from benign to lymphoma (17/182, 9%), a change in FL grade (5/182, 3%), or change in the lymphoma diagnostic category (4/182, 2%). There were no cases where an initial diagnosis of lymphoma was overturned. The distribution of discrepancies was similar across initial SVB types (FNA, FNA + cell block, NCB with or without FNA). Tissue limitations were noted in a minority of cases (53/182, 29%) and were enriched among initially nondiagnostic biopsies (16/21, 76%). Flow cytometry immunophenotyping was performed in the majority of cases both at the first and last biopsy (147/182, 81%). SVB can be a powerful method to detect FL in various clinical indications, with discrepant cases mostly resulting from a refinement in the initial diagnosis.
Objectives Small-volume biopsy—fine-needle aspiration biopsy (FNAB) with or without core biopsy—is in increasing use in diagnosis and management of lymphoma patients. Our objective was to survey the current practice in small-volume biopsy diagnosis of lymphoma, focusing on the interaction among hematopathologists and cytopathologists and the integration of FNAB, core biopsy, and flow cytometry studies at sign-out. Methods This study used a cross-sectional survey design employing the RedCap database distributed via nine pathology professional society email listservs. The survey consisted of 25 multiple-choice questions and several free text fields. In total, 128 pathologists participated. Results Most respondents indicated that FNAB specimens in which lymphoma is a diagnostic consideration (FNAB-L) are seen daily or weekly (68/116; 58.6%). However, most institutions have separate hematopathology and cytopathology services (72/116; 62.1%) with inconsistent communication. When communication occurred, respondents were frequently inclined to reconsider their original diagnoses. Barriers identified included lack of communication, inadequate access to diagnostic studies, no formal subspecialty training, and various opinions regarding FNAB in diagnosing lymphoma. Conclusions This survey showed that FNAB-L specimens are common, with a lack of uniformity in how complementary fine-needle aspiration and core biopsy specimens or flow immunophenotyping results are shared across hematopathology and cytopathology services.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.