Search

We assessed the landscape of diagnostic pathology practice and how molecular classification could potentially impact management of patients with endometrial cancer by collecting patient samples, clinicopathologic data, and patient outcomes from EC patients diagnosed in 2016 at 10 Canadian tertiary cancer centers and 19 community hospitals. ProMisE molecular subtype (POLEmut, MMRd, p53abn, No Specific Molecular Profile (NSMP)) was assigned retrospectively. 1357 patients were fully evaluable including 85 POLEmut (6.3%), 380 MMRd (28.0%), 643 NSMP (47.4%), and 249 p53abn ECs (18.3%). Immunohistochemistry (IHC) for MMR proteins was undertaken at the time of primary diagnosis in 2016 in only 42% of the cohort (570/1357; range 3.5-95.4%/center). p53 IHC had only been performed in 21.1% of the cohort (286/1357; range 10.1-41.9%/center). Thus, based on the retrospective molecular subtype assignment, 54.7% (208/380) of MMRd EC had not been tested with MMR IHC (or MSI) and 48.2% (120/249) of p53abn ECs were not tested with p53 IHC in 2016. Molecular subtype diversity within histotypes was profound; most serous carcinomas were p53abn (91.4%), but only 129/249 (51.8%) p53abn EC were serous. Low-grade (Gr1-2) endometrioid carcinomas were mostly NSMP (589/954, 61.7%) but included all molecular subtypes, including p53abn (19/954, 2.0%). Molecular subtype was significantly associated with clinical outcomes (p 0.001) even in patients with stage I disease (OS p = 0.006, DSS p 0.001, PFS p 0.001). Assessment of national pathologic practice in 2016 shows highly variable use of MMR and p53 IHC and demonstrates significant opportunities to improve and standardize biomarker reporting. Inconsistent, non-reflexive IHC resulted in missed opportunities for Hereditary Cancer Program referral and Lynch Syndrome diagnosis, and missed potential therapeutic implications (e.g., chemotherapy in p53abn EC, immune blockade for MMRd EC). Routine integration of molecular subtyping into practice can improve the consistency of EC pathology assessment and classification.

We measured the variation in practice across all aspects of endometrial cancer (EC) management and assessed the potential impact of implementation of molecular classification.Centers from across Canada provided representative tumor samples and clinical data, including preoperative workup, operative management, hereditary cancer program (HCP) referrals, adjuvant therapy, surveillance and outcomes, for all EC patients diagnosed in 2016. Tumors were classified into the four ProMisE molecular subtypes.A total of 1336 fully evaluable EC patients were identified from 10 tertiary cancer centers (TC; n = 1022) and 19 community centers (CC; n = 314). Variation of surgical practice across TCs was profound (14-100%) for lymphadenectomy (LND) (mean 57% Gr1/2, 82% Gr3) and omental sampling (20% Gr1/2, 79% Gr3). Preoperative CT scans were inconsistently obtained (mean 32% Gr1/2, 51% Gr3) and use of adjuvant chemo or chemoRT in high risk EC ranged from 0-55% and 64-100%, respectively. Molecular subtyping was performed retrospectively and identified 6% POLEmut, 28% MMRd, 48% NSMP and 18% p53abn ECs, and was significantly associated with survival. Within patients retrospectively diagnosed with MMRd EC only 22% had been referred to HCP. Of patients with p53abn EC, LND and omental sampling was not performed in 21% and 23% respectively, and 41% received no chemotherapy. Comparison of management in 2016 with current 2020 ESGO/ESTRO/ESP guidelines identified at least 26 and 95 patients that would have been directed to less or more adjuvant therapy, respectively (10% of cohort).Molecular classification has the potential to mitigate the profound variation in practice demonstrated in current EC care, enabling reproducible risk assessment, guiding treatment and reducing health care disparities.

Collagen deposition is observed in several cutaneous neoplasms and its derivation is variable. It can represent (1) a mesenchymal component of a biphasic tumor, (2) a desmoplastic host response to a neoplasm, or (3) a product of the tumor cells. The result is that collagenous (desmoplastic) variants of many cutaneous neoplasms are well recognized. In regard to atypical fibroxanthoma (AFX), conventional wisdom holds that intratumoral collagen is not commonly observed, apart from the rare sclerotic subtype of the neoplasm. This has not been our experience. The relatively frequent observation of keloidal collagen in AFXs and the dearth of information in the literature about this phenomenon prompted us to investigate the matter. All cases of AFX diagnosed at our institution within a 10-year period (1999-2008) were reviewed. The group included 64 males and 27 females with a mean age of 75 years. The majority of the cases (92%) were located on the head or neck. The conventional pleomorphic subtype of the tumor was encountered most frequently (67%). In 17 of the 91 cases (19%), prominent intratumoral keloidal collagen was present. This morphological observation poses interesting questions: (1) Is the collagen part of a host response to the neoplasm or is it a product of the tumor cells? (2) If the latter, does it cast light on the controversial histogenesis of AFX? (3) Does it signify an involutional stage of the tumor and imply a favorable prognosis? (4) Is it related to the "sclerotic" variant of the tumor? We discuss the above quandaries and emphasize the need to register this variant of AFX amongst other morphological subtypes of the tumor. The goal is to facilitate accuracy in diagnosis and to promote further investigation.