Prognostic impact of histological review of high-grade endometrial carcinomas in a large Danish cohort

The Premetastatic Lymph Node Niche in Gynecologic Cancer

It has been suggested that a primary tumor can "prepare" the draining of lymph nodes to "better accommodate" future metastatic cells, thus implying the presence of a premetastatic lymph node niche. However, this phenomenon remains unclear in gynecological cancers. The aim of this study was to evaluate lymph-node draining in gynecological cancers for premetastatic niche factors, such as myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs), immunosuppressive macrophages, cytotoxic T cells, immuno-modulatory molecules, and factors of the extracellular matrix. This is a monocentric retrospective study of patients who underwent lymph-node excision during their gynecological-cancer treatment. In all, 63 non-metastatic pelvic or inguinal lymph nodes, 25 non-metastatic para-aortic lymph nodes, 13 metastatic lymph nodes, and 21 non-cancer-associated lymph nodes (normal controls) were compared for the immunohistochemical presence of CD8 cytotoxic T cells, CD163 M2 macrophages, S100A8/A9 MDSCs, PD-L1+ immune cells, and tenascin-C, which is a matrix remodeling factor. PD-L1-positive immune cells were significantly higher in the control group, in comparison to the regional and distant cancer-draining lymph nodes. Tenascin-C was higher in metastatic lymph nodes than in both non-metastatic nodes and control lymph nodes. Vulvar cancer-draining lymph nodes showed higher PD-L1 values than endometrial cancer and cervical cancer-draining lymph nodes. Endometrial cancer-draining nodes had higher CD163 values and lower CD8 values, compared to vulvar cancer-draining nodes. Regarding regional draining nodes in low- and high-grade endometrial tumors, the former showed lower S100A8/A9 and CD163 values. Gynecological cancer-draining lymph nodes are generally immunocompetent, but vulvar cancer draining nodes, as well as high-grade endometrial cancer draining nodes, are more susceptible to harboring premetastatic niche factors.

The evolving role of morphology in endometrial cancer diagnostics: From histopathology and molecular testing towards integrative data analysis by deep learning

Endometrial cancer (EC) diagnostics is evolving into a system in which molecular aspects are increasingly important. The traditional histological subtype-driven classification has shifted to a molecular-based classification that stratifies EC into DNA polymerase epsilon mutated (POLEmut), mismatch repair deficient (MMRd), and p53 abnormal (p53abn), and the remaining EC as no specific molecular profile (NSMP). The molecular EC classification has been implemented in the World Health Organization 2020 classification and the 2021 European treatment guidelines, as it serves as a better basis for patient management. As a result, the integration of the molecular class with histopathological variables has become a critical focus of recent EC research. Pathologists have observed and described several morphological characteristics in association with specific genomic alterations, but these appear insufficient to accurately classify patients according to molecular subgroups. This requires pathologists to rely on molecular ancillary tests in routine workup. In this new era, it has become increasingly challenging to assign clinically relevant weights to histological and molecular features on an individual patient basis. Deep learning (DL) technology opens new options for the integrative analysis of multi-modal image and molecular datasets with clinical outcomes. Proof-of-concept studies in other cancers showed promising accuracy in predicting molecular alterations from H&E-stained tumor slide images. This suggests that some morphological characteristics that are associated with molecular alterations could be identified in EC, too, expanding the current understanding of the molecular-driven EC classification. Here in this review, we report the morphological characteristics of the molecular EC classification currently identified in the literature. Given the new challenges in EC diagnostics, this review discusses, therefore, the potential supportive role that DL could have, by providing an outlook on all relevant studies using DL on histopathology images in various cancer types with a focus on EC. Finally, we touch upon how DL might shape the management of future EC patients.

Diagnostic accuracy of HNF1β, Napsin A and P504S/Alpha-Methylacyl-CoA Racemase (AMACR) as markers of endometrial clear cell carcinoma

Endometrial clear cell carcinoma (CCC) shows morphological overlap with endometrioid and serous carcinoma. We aimed to assess the accuracy of immunohistochemical diagnostic markers of CCC, i.e. HNF1β, Napsin A and P504S/Alpha-Methylacyl-CoA Racemase (AMACR). A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted by searching 4 electronic databases from their inception to April 2022 for all studies assessing HNF1β, Napsin A and/or AMACR in endometrial CCC vs endometrioid/serous carcinomas. Diagnostic accuracy was assessed as sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR+ and LR-), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) and area under the curve (AUC) on sROC curves. Eleven studies were included. HNF1β positivity (any expression) showed sensitivity= 0.78; specificity= 0.81; LR+ =2.46; LR-= 0.38; DOR= 5.96; AUC= 0.79. Diffuse HNF1β expression showed sensitivity= 0.53; specificity= 0.95; LR+ =9.68; LR-= 0.51; DOR= 18.02; AUC= 0.40. Napsin A positivity (any expression) showed sensitivity= 0.76; specificity= 0.97; LR+ =18.79; LR-= 0.27; DOR= 73.31; AUC= 0.81. Diffuse Napsin A expression showed sensitivity= 0.52; specificity= 0.99; LR+ =14.50; LR-= 0.55; DOR= 24.93; AUC= 0.98. AMACR positivity (any expression) showed sensitivity= 0.76; specificity= 0.86; LR+ =4.86; LR-= 0.30; DOR= 13.56; AUC was not assessable due to the presence of only 2 studies. In conclusion, HNF1β, Napsin A and AMACR show moderate accuracy in identifying endometrial CCC. Considering only a diffuse expression of these markers as positive leads to high specificity but low sensitivity. In particular, Napsin A appears as the most specific marker of endometrial CCC.