Diagnosis of hydatidiform moles by polymorphic deletion probe fluorescence in situ hybridization

Diandric triploid partial mole versus digynic nonmolar triploidy: is morphological assessment sufficient for the diagnostic distinction?

AIMS

Diagnostic separation of diandric triploid gestation, i.e. partial mole from digynic triploid gestation, is clinically relevant, as the former may progress to postmolar gestational trophoblastic neoplasia. The aim of the study was to investigate if the combination of abnormal histology combined with ploidy analysis-based triploidy is sufficient to accurately diagnose partial mole.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A genotype-phenotype correlation study was undertaken to reappraise histological parameters among 20 diandric triploid gestations and 22 digynic triploid gestations of comparable patient age, gestational weeks, and clinical presentations. Two villous populations, irregular villous contours, pseudoinclusions, and syncytiotrophoblast knuckles, were common in both groups. Villous size ≥2.5 mm, cistern formation, trophoblastic hyperplasia, and syncytiotrophoblast lacunae were significantly more common in the partial hydatidiform mole. Cistern formation had the highest positive predictive value (PPV) (93%) and highest specificity (96%) for diandric triploid gestation, although the sensitivity was 70%. Cistern formation combined with villous size ≥2.5 mm or trophoblast hyperplasia or syncytiotrophoblast lacunae had 100% specificity and PPV, but a marginal sensitivity of 60%-65%. A moderate interobserver agreement (Kappa = 0.57, Gwet's AC1 = 0.59) was achieved among four observers who assigned diagnosis of diandric triploid gestation or digynic triploidy solely based on histology.

CONCLUSIONS

None of histological parameters are unique to either diandric triploid gestation or digynic triploid gestation. Cistern formation is the most powerful discriminator, with 93% PPV and 70% sensitivity for diandric triploid gestation. While cistern formation combined with either trophoblastic hyperplasia or villous size ≥2.5 mm or syncytiotrophoblast lacunae has 100% PPV and specificity for diandric triploid gestation, the sensitivity is only 60% to 65%. Therefore, in the presence of triploidy, histological assessment is unable to precisely classify 35% to 40% of diandric triploid gestations or partial moles.

Gestational Trophoblastic Disease: Complete versus Partial Hydatidiform Moles

Hydatidiform moles, including both complete and partial moles, constitute a subset of gestational trophoblastic diseases characterized by abnormal fertilization resulting in villous hydrops and trophoblastic hyperplasia with or without embryonic development. This involves chromosomal abnormalities, where one or two sperms fertilize an empty oocyte (complete hydatidiform mole (CHM); mostly 46,XX) or two sperms fertilize one oocyte (partial hydatidiform mole (PHM); mostly 69,XXY). Notably, recurrent occurrences are associated with abnormal genomic imprinting of maternal effect genes such as NLRP7 (chromosome 19q13.4) and KHDC3L (chromosome 6q1). Ongoing efforts to enhance identification methods have led to the identification of growth-specific markers, including p57 (cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor 1C; CDKN1C), which shows intact nuclear expression in the villous cytotrophoblast and villous stromal cells in PHMs and loss of expression in CHMs. Treatment of hydatidiform moles includes dilation and curettage for uterine evacuation of the molar pregnancy followed by surveillance of human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG) levels to confirm disease resolution and rule out the development of any gestational trophoblastic neoplasia. In this review, we provide a synopsis of the existing literature on hydatidiform moles, their diagnosis, histopathologic features, and management.

Auxiliary and experimental diagnostic techniques for hydatidiform moles

Hydatidiform moles are classified into complete hydatidiform moles (CHMs), which are androgenetic and diploid, and partial hydatidiform moles (PHM), which are triploid with two paternal chromosomes and one maternal chromosome. The incidence of gestational trophoblastic neoplasia differs substantially between CHM and PHM. However, they are occasionally difficult to diagnose. In this review, auxiliary and experimental methods based on cytogenetic features and advanced molecular detection techniques applied to the diagnosis and analysis of hydatidiform moles are summarized, including basic principles, characteristics, and clinical implications. Short tandem repeat polymorphism analysis is considered the gold standard for the genetic diagnosis of hydatidiform moles. In clinical settings, immunohistochemical analyses of p57^KIP2 , an imprinted gene product, are widely used to differentiate CHMs from other conceptuses, including PHMs. Recently, new molecular genetic techniques, such as single nucleotide polymorphism arrays, have been applied to research on hydatidiform moles. In addition to insights from classical methods, such as chromosome analysis, recently developed approaches have yielded novel findings related to the mechanism underlying the development of androgenetic CHMs.

Morphological Features and Immunohistochemical Expression of p57Kip2 in Early Molar Pregnancies and Their Relations to the Progression to Persistent Trophoblastic Disease

Background

Although the morphological features characteristic of products of conception specimens including molar pregnancies are well described, substantial histopathological similarities are observed between the different entities, especially in cases of early pregnancies. Furthermore, there are no current solid criteria that could predict cases with progression to persistent gestational trophoblastic disease. In this study, we aimed to determine the most specific histopathological and immunohistochemical features required for accurate diagnosis that can reliably predict the clinical behavior.

Methods

Sixty-five cases of products of conception were reviewed clinically and pathologically, and any progression to persistent gestational trophoblastic disease (GTD), if present, was noted. Pathological assessment of the archival material included re-cut sections of 5 μm in thickness, routine staining with hematoxylin and eosin and immunohistochemical staining of p57Kip2.

Results

Certain histopathological criteria were found to be significant in differentiation between complete hydatidiform mole (CHM) and partial hydatidiform mole including villous shape and outline, villous trophoblast hyperplasia, and atypia in extravillous trophoblasts. There were no significant differences in any morphological or immunohistochemical features between cases with or without subsequent development of GTD.

Conclusions

Histopathological diagnosis of molar pregnancy remains problematic especially in early gestation. Their diagnosis should be stated after a constellation of specific histopathological criteria in order not to miss CHM. p57Kip2 immunohistochemistry is of great value in diagnosis of cases that had equivocal morphology by histopathological examination. However, there were no significant features to predict cases that subsequently developed persistent GTD.

Single nucleotide polymorphism-based microarray analysis for the diagnosis of hydatidiform moles

In clinical diagnostics, single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)-based microarray analysis enables the detection of copy number variations (CNVs), as well as copy number neutral regions, that are absent of heterozygosity throughout the genome. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effectiveness and sensitivity of SNP‑based microarray analysis in the diagnosis of hydatidiform mole (HM). By using whole‑genome SNP microarray analysis, villous genotypes were detected, and the ploidy of villous tissue was determined to identify HMs. A total of 66 villous tissues and two twin tissues were assessed in the present study. Among these samples, 11 were triploid, one was tetraploid, 23 were abnormal aneuploidy, three were complete genome homozygosity, and the remaining ones were normal ploidy. The most noteworthy finding of the present study was the identification of six partial HMs and three complete HMs from those samples that were not identified as being HMs on the basis of the initial diagnosis of experienced obstetricians. This study has demonstrated that the application of an SNP‑based microarray analysis was able to increase the sensitivity of diagnosis for HMs with partial and complete HMs, which makes the identification of these diseases at an early gestational age possible.

Development of a silver in situ hybridisation based assay for the determination of ploidy status in molar pregnancy diagnosis

The aim of this study was to establish a scoring method for ploidy analysis using silver in situ hybridisation (SISH) with a chromosome 17 centromere probe. SISH was performed using the Ventana chromosome 17 centromere probe on sections from formalin fixed, paraffin embedded archival cases of complete hydatidiform moles, partial hydatidiform moles and hydropic products of conception with previously established ploidy status (determined by flow cytometry or karyotyping). In order to determine ploidy status, a scoring method was developed based on both the average number of signals per nucleus (ASN) and the percentage of nuclei with three signals (N3S), enumerated in 50 villous cytotrophoblastic and/or stromal cells. The results of four independent observers were compared individually and collectively with previously established ploidy status. There was a highly statistically significant difference between diploid and triploid gestations for ASN (1.86 ± 0.13 and 2.70 ± 0.16 respectively, Student t-test, p < 0.0001) and for N3S (1.14 ± 1.65 and 71.59 ± 14.25 respectively, Student t-test, p < 0.0001). The sensitivity and specificity of the SISH-based assay was 99.1% and 100% respectively for ASN, and 100% and 100% respectively for N3S. A chromosome 17 centromere probe SISH-based assay can reliably distinguish between diploid and triploid gestations. This test has diagnostic utility in distinguishing partial hydatidiform moles from histological mimics.

Placental mesenchymal dysplasia and fetal renal-hepatic-pancreatic dysplasia: androgenetic-biparental mosaicism and pathogenesis of an autosomal recessive disorder

Androgenetic-biparental mosaicism (ABM) denotes an embryo in which a subset of cells contains a diploid chromosomal complement derived entirely from the father. Such embryos have a high incidence of placental mesenchymal dysplasia (PMD) and paternal imprinting disorders because the androgenetic cells have pangenomic paternal uniparental disomy. Uniparental disomy also poses a theoretical risk for paternally transmitted autosomal recessive disorders, if both chromosomes of each autosomal pair are identical (isodisomy). We present the 1st example of a recessive disorder, renal-hepatic-pancreatic dysplasia, in a pregnancy complicated by PMD and ABM. Androgenetic-biparental mosaicism was demonstrated in fetal DNA, extracted from multiple organs, by quantitative polymerase chain reaction-based methods that detected allelic imbalances at the differentially methylated SNRPN locus (chromosome 15); polymorphic short tandem repeat microsatellite markers located on chromosomes 4, 7, 8, 13, 18, and 21; and single nucleotide polymorphisms on chromosomes 1 and 19. Laser capture microdissection was performed to isolate specific placental and renal cell populations and document selective enrichment of androgenetic cells in the stroma of PMD and the epithelium of renal cysts. Mutational analysis of coding sequences did not reveal any mutations in NPHP3, a ciliopathy gene implicated in some cases of renal-hepatic-pancreatic dysplasia. Nonetheless, the fetal phenotype and laser capture data support the model of a paternally transmitted autosomal recessive disorder, which occurred because of ABM.

Placental Mesenchymal Dysplasia

Placental mesenchymal dysplasia is a rare, incompletely understood placental stromal lesion, characterized by placentomegaly and striking ectasia and tortuosity of chorionic plate and stem villous vessels. Its prenatal ultrasonographic and gross pathologic features resemble those of a partial mole, but the fetus is typically normal and the placenta has a diploid, chromosomal complement. We discuss the pathologic features and current understanding of the etiopathogenesis of this condition, the supportive immunohistochemical and confirmatory molecular genetic studies important in its diagnosis, and its implications for pregnancy and infant outcomes.

Diagnostic reproducibility of hydatidiform moles: ancillary techniques (p57 immunohistochemistry and molecular genotyping) improve morphologic diagnosis for both recently trained and experienced gynecologic pathologists

Distinction of hydatidiform moles from nonmolar specimens (NMs) and subclassification of hydatidiform moles as complete hydatidiform mole (CHM) and partial hydatidiform mole (PHM) are important for clinical practice and investigational studies; however, diagnosis based solely on morphology is affected by interobserver variability. Molecular genotyping can distinguish these entities by discerning androgenetic diploidy, diandric triploidy, and biparental diploidy to diagnose CHMs, PHMs, and NMs, respectively. Eighty genotyped cases (27 CHMs, 27 PHMs, 26 NMs) were selected from a series of 200 potentially molar specimens previously diagnosed using p57 immunohistochemistry and genotyping. Cases were classified by 6 pathologists (3 faculty level gynecologic pathologists and 3 fellows) on the basis of morphology, masked to p57 immunostaining and genotyping results, into 1 of 3 categories (CHM, PHM, or NM) during 2 diagnostic rounds; a third round incorporating p57 immunostaining results was also conducted. Consensus diagnoses (those rendered by 2 of 3 pathologists in each group) were also determined. Performance of experienced gynecologic pathologists versus fellow pathologists was compared, using genotyping results as the gold standard. Correct classification of CHMs ranged from 59% to 100%; there were no statistically significant differences in performance of faculty versus fellows in any round (P-values of 0.13, 0.67, and 0.54 for rounds 1 to 3, respectively). Correct classification of PHMs ranged from 26% to 93%, with statistically significantly better performance of faculty versus fellows in each round (P-values of 0.04, <0.01, and <0.01 for rounds 1 to 3, respectively). Correct classification of NMs ranged from 31% to 92%, with statistically significantly better performance of faculty only in round 2 (P-values of 1.0, <0.01, and 0.61 for rounds 1 to 3, respectively). Correct classification of all cases combined ranged from 51% to 75% by morphology and 70% to 80% with p57, with statistically significantly better performance of faculty only in round 2 (P-values of 0.69, <0.01, and 0.15 for rounds 1 to 3, respectively). p57 immunostaining significantly improved recognition of CHMs (P<0.01) and had high reproducibility (κ=0.93 to 0.96) but had no impact on distinction of PHMs and NMs. Genotyping provides a definitive diagnosis for the ∼25% to 50% of cases that are misclassified by morphology, especially those that are also unresolved by p57 immunostaining.

Diagnostic reproducibility of hydatidiform moles: ancillary techniques (p57 immunohistochemistry and molecular genotyping) improve morphologic diagnosis

Distinction of hydatidiform moles (HMs) from nonmolar specimens (NMs) and subclassification of HMs as complete hydatidiform moles (CHMs) and partial hydatidiform moles (PHMs) are important for clinical practice and investigational studies; yet, diagnosis based solely on morphology is affected by interobserver variability. Molecular genotyping can distinguish these entities by discerning androgenetic diploidy, diandric triploidy, and biparental diploidy to diagnose CHMs, PHMs, and NMs, respectively. Eighty genotyped cases (27 CHMs, 27 PHMs, and 26 NMs) were selected from a series of 200 potentially molar specimens previously diagnosed using p57 immunostaining and genotyping. Cases were classified by 3 gynecologic pathologists on the basis of H&E slides (masked to p57 immunostaining and genotyping results) into 1 of 3 categories (CHM, PHM, or NM) during 2 diagnostic rounds; a third round incorporating p57 immunostaining results was also conducted. Consensus diagnoses (those rendered by 2 of 3 pathologists) were determined. Genotyping results were used as the gold standard for assessing diagnostic performance. Sensitivity of a diagnosis of CHM ranged from 59% to 100% for individual pathologists and from 70% to 81% by consensus; specificity ranged from 91% to 96% for individuals and from 94% to 98% by consensus. Sensitivity of a diagnosis of PHM ranged from 56% to 93% for individual pathologists and from 70% to 78% by consensus; specificity ranged from 58% to 92% for individuals and from 74% to 85% by consensus. The percentage of correct classification of all cases by morphology ranged from 55% to 75% for individual pathologists and from 70% to 75% by consensus. The κ values for interobserver agreement ranged from 0.59 to 0.73 (moderate to good) for a diagnosis of CHM, from 0.15 to 0.43 (poor to moderate) for PHM, and from 0.13 to 0.42 (poor to moderate) for NM. The κ values for intraobserver agreement ranged from 0.44 to 0.67 (moderate to good). Addition of the p57 immunostain improved sensitivity of a diagnosis of CHM to a range of 93% to 96% for individual pathologists and 96% by consensus; specificity was improved from a range of 96% to 98% for individual pathologists and 96% by consensus; there was no substantial impact on diagnosis of PHMs and NMs. Interobserver agreement for interpretation of the p57 immunostain was 0.96 (almost perfect). Even with morphologic assessment by gynecologic pathologists and p57 immunohistochemistry, 20% to 30% of cases will be misclassified, and, in particular, distinction of PHMs and NMs will remain problematic.