Molecular alterations of appendiceal serrated lesions

Differential diagnosis of appendiceal serrated lesions and polyps and low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm: analysis of 88 cases

PURPOSE

To identify clinicopathological features for the differential diagnosis of appendiceal serrated lesions and polyps (SPs) and low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm (LAMN) for the purpose of avoiding over-diagnosis.

METHODS

Clinical data and pathological features of 66 patients with SPs diagnosed at the Aerospace Center Hospital between January 2013 and January 2021 were collected and compared to 22 cases of LAMN.

RESULTS

SPs, compared with LAMN, are likely to be associated with acute inflammation (SPs 53.0% vs. LAMN 18.2%), and may be located in the appendix partly, although with smaller diameter (average 9.6 vs. 27.2 mm); epithelial structures of serrated (100% vs. 22.7%) and filiform villous (47.0% vs. 18.2%) were often found in SPs. SPs occasionally show attenuated or flattened morphology (16.7% vs. 100%) and undulating or scalloped (7.6% vs. 40.9%) structures, and can also be accompanied by diverticulum (18.2% vs. 18.2%) and acellular mucin in the appendiceal wall (16.7% vs. 54.5%), which causes confusion with LAMN. The key point of the differential diagnosis is to observe whether the muscularis mucosa exists (loss, 0% vs. 100%) and fibrosis of the appendiceal wall (0% vs. 100%). SMA immunohistochemistry can assist in the diagnosis. Calcification is also indicative of LAMN.

CONCLUSIONS

The epithelial structure of SPs can appear flattened and focally scalloped, and can be accompanied by mucin in the appendiceal wall, which may appear as complex lesions, easily over-diagnosed as LAMN. Key differential diagnostic features are identifying the structure of lamina propria, determining whether the muscularis mucosa exists, and whether the appendiceal wall is fibrotic.

Correlation of molecular and morphological features of appendiceal epithelial neoplasms

AIMS

The aims of this study were to identify the genetic features of appendiceal epithelial neoplasms and correlate the genetic features with morphology.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We analysed the genetic features of a series of 47 appendiceal epithelial neoplasms of various morphologies by using targeted next-generation sequencing of 11 genes commonly mutated in gastrointestinal neoplasms. Seven of nine serrated polyps harboured BRAF mutations, which are rare in other types of appendiceal tumours. Most cases of low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasms (LAMNs) exhibited GNAS and KRAS mutations. LAMNs with a coexisting serrated polyp were all KRAS mutated. Four LAMNs with mutations in the Wnt/β-catenin pathway, either through inactivating mutations in APC or RNF43 or activating mutations in CTNNB1, had focal proliferation of mucin-poor low-grade tumour cells, reminiscent of colorectal adenomas. Mutations in the Wnt/β-catenin pathway were also identified in high-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasms, suggesting that Wnt/β-catenin pathway activation is the driving force for the progression of LAMN to a higher-grade lesion. Adenomatous polyps of the appendix frequently had APC, KRAS and TP53 mutations and were morphologically and molecularly similar to adenomatous polyps of the colorectum.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicate a close association between morphology and genetic events in appendiceal neoplasms and suggest a phylogenetic relationship between different entities.