Search

Aims: Ovarian Wilms tumour (WT)/nephroblastoma is an extremely rare neoplasm that has been reported to occur in pure form or as a component of a teratomatous neoplasm. We hypothesized that teratoma‐associated and pure ovarian WT may represent different tumour types with diverging molecular backgrounds. To test this hypothesis, we comprehensively characterized a series of five tumours originally diagnosed as ovarian WT. Methods and Results: The five cases comprised three teratoma‐associated (two mature and one immature) and two pure WTs. Two of the teratoma‐associated WTs consisted of small nodular arrangements of "glandular"/epithelial structures, while the third consisted of both an epithelial and a diffuse spindle cell/blastemal component. The pure WTs consisted of "glandular" structures, which were positive for sex cord markers (including inhibin and SF1) together with a rhabdomyosarcomatous component. The two pure WTs harboured DICER1 pathogenic variants (PVs), while the three associated with teratomas were DICER1 wildtype. Panel‐based DNA sequencing of four of the cases did not identify PVs in the other genes investigated. Analysis of the HA19/IGF2 imprinting region showed retention of imprinting in the pure WTs but loss of heterozygosity with hypomethylation of the ICR1 region in two of three teratoma‐associated WTs. Furthermore, copy number variation and clustering‐based whole‐genome DNA methylation analyses identified divergent molecular profiles for pure and teratoma‐associated WTs. Conclusion: Based on the morphological features, immunophenotype, and molecular findings (DICER1 PVs, copy number, and DNA methylation profiles), we suggest that the two cases diagnosed as pure primary ovarian WT represent moderately to poorly differentiated Sertoli Leydig cell tumours (SLCTs), while the tumours arising in teratomas represent true WTs. It is possible that at least some prior cases reported as pure primary ovarian WT represent SLCTs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

DICER1 syndrome is an autosomal dominant tumour predisposition syndrome usually affecting persons under 30 years of age. Many of the associated benign and malignant lesions occur almost exclusively in DICER1 syndrome. One such tumour, pituitary blastoma (pitB), overexpresses PRAME 500x above control levels. PRAME (PReferentially expressed Antigen in MElanoma) is expressed in malignancies that are not DICER1‐related (e.g. melanoma). To address whether PRAME expression is part of the DICER1 phenotype, or simply a feature of pitB, a series of 75 DICER1‐mutated specimens and 33 non‐mutated specimens was surveyed using immunohistochemistry for PRAME, together with EZH2, which complexes with PRAME. In DICER1‐mutated specimens, positive staining for PRAME was only seen in malignant tumours; 7 of 11 histological types and 34/62 individual tumours were positive, while non‐tumourous lesions were always negative. Pleuropulmonary blastoma (PPB) showed a continuum in staining, with type I lesions being PRAME negative (n = 7) but all type II and type III lesions PRAME positive (n = 7). Similarly, cystic nephroma (CN) was negative (n = 8), with anaplastic sarcoma of the kidney being positive (n = 2). However, one atypical CN with mesenchymal cell proliferation was PRAME‐positive. Embryonal rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) with DICER1 pathogenic variants (PVs) was positive for PRAME (5/6), but the same tumour type without DICER1 PVs was also positive (9/15). Staining for EZH2 corresponded to that seen with PRAME, validating the latter. This study leads us to conclude that (1) PRAME expression occurs in two‐thirds of DICER1‐related malignancies; (2) PRAME may be a marker for the progression that certain DICER1‐related lesions are thought to undergo, such as PPB and CN; and (3) PRAME expression in some tumours, such as RMS, appears to be an intrinsic feature of the tumour, rather than specifically related to DICER1 PVs. Therapy directed against PRAME may offer novel treatment options in patients with the DICER1 syndrome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To expand the morphological spectrum of ovarian microcystic stromal tumour, a rare neoplasm considered to have a relatively constant morphology with microcysts, solid cellular regions and hyalinised fibrous stroma. Methods and results: We report four ovarian neoplasms in patients aged 45, 56, 61 and 71 years with the characteristic immunophenotype of microcystic stromal tumour (diffuse nuclear positivity with betacatenin, cyclin D1 and WT1; diffuse cytoplasmic positivity with CD10; negative inhibin, calretinin, oestrogen receptor and progesterone receptor). The tumours had variant morphology (diffuse, nested and corded arrangements in three cases, including one with spindle cell elements; nested, corded and tubular in the other). A CTNNB1 point mutation in exon 3 (c.98C>G,p.S33C; c.100G>A,p.G34R; c.97T>G, p.S33A) was present in the three cases with material available for testing. Conclusions: We feel that the cases we report are related to microcystic stromal tumour but with variant morphology; as such, the morphological spectrum of ovarian microcystic stromal tumour is broader than hitherto reported. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]