Paternal uniparental isodisomy of tyrosine hydroxylase locus at chromosome 11p15.4: spectrum of phenotypical presentations simulating hydatidiform moles

Reappraisal and refined diagnosis of ultrasonography and histological findings for hydatidiform moles: a multicentre retrospective study of 821 patients

AIMS

Specific identification of a hydatidiform mole (HM) and subclassification of a complete hydatidiform mole (CHM) or partial hydatidiform mole (PHM) are critical. This study aimed to reappraise the diagnostic performance of ultrasonography and histology with a refined diagnosis.

METHODS

This was a retrospective, multicentre cohort study of 821 patients with histologically suspected HM specimens. Refined diagnostic algorithms with p57 immunohistochemistry and short tandem repeat (STR) genotyping were performed and used as the true standard for assessing the diagnostic performance of the original ultrasonography and morphology methods. The diagnostic performance was calculated using accuracy, agreement rate, sensitivity and the positive predictive value (PPV) compared with refined diagnostic results.

RESULTS

Of the 821 histologically suspected HM cases included, 788 (95.98%) were successfully reclassified into 448 CHMs, 213 PHMs and 127 non-molar (NM) abortuses. Ultrasonography showed an overall accuracy of 44.38%, with a sensitivity of 44.33% for CHM and 37.5% for PHM. The overall classification accuracy of the original morphological diagnosis was 65.97%. After exclusion of the initially untyped HMs, the overall agreement rate was 59.11% (κ=0.364, p<0.0001) between the original and refined diagnoses, with a sensitivity of 40.09% and PPV of 96.05% for diagnosing CHMs and a sensitivity of 84.98% and a PPV of 45.59% for diagnosing PHMs. The interinstitutional variability of morphology in diagnosing HMs was significant among the 15 centres (range, 8.33%-100.00%, p<0.0001).

CONCLUSION

The current diagnosis of HM based solely on ultrasound or morphology remains problematic, and ancillary techniques, particularly p57 immunohistochemistry and DNA genotyping, should be integrated into routine practice as much as possible.

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.

When to Consult a Geneticist Specialising in Gestational Trophoblastic Disease

BACKGROUND

Gestational trophoblastic disease comprises hydatidiform moles and a rare group of malignancies that derive from trophoblasts. Although there are typical morphological features that may distinguish hydatidiform moles from non-molar products of conception, such features are not always present, especially at early stages of pregnancy. Furthermore, mosaic/chimeric pregnancies and twin pregnancies make pathological diagnosis challenging while trophoblastic tumours can also pose diagnostic problems in terms of their gestational or non-gestational origin.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to show that ancillary genetic testing can be used to aid diagnosis and clinical management of GTD.

METHODS

Each author identified cases where genetic testing, including short tandem repeat (STR) genotyping, ploidy analysis, next-generation sequencing, and immunostaining for p57, the product of the imprinted gene CDKN1C, facilitated accurate diagnosis and improved patient management. Representative cases were chosen to illustrate the value of ancillary genetic testing in different scenarios.

OUTCOME

Genetic analysis of placental tissue can aid in determining the risk of developing gestational trophoblastic neoplasia, facilitating discrimination between low risk triploid (partial) and high risk androgenetic (complete) moles, discriminating between a hydatidiform mole twinned with a normal conceptus and a triploid conception and identification of androgenetic/biparental diploid mosaicism/chimerism. STR genotyping of placental tissue and targeted gene sequencing of patients can identify women with an inherited predisposition to recurrent molar pregnancies. Genotyping can distinguish gestational from non-gestational trophoblastic tumours using tissue or circulating tumour DNA and can also identify the causative pregnancy which is the key prognostic factor for placental site and epithelioid trophoblastic tumours.

CONCLUSIONS AND OUTLOOK

STR genotyping and p57 immunostaining have been invaluable to the management of gestational trophoblastic disease in many situations. The use of next-generation sequencing and of liquid biopsies is opening up new pathways for GTD diagnostics. Development of these techniques has the potential to identify novel biomarkers of GTD and further refine diagnosis.

Challenges in diagnosing hydatidiform moles: a review of promising molecular biomarkers

INTRODUCTION

Hydatidiform moles (HMs) are pathologic conceptions with unique genetic bases and abnormal placental villous tissue. Overlapping ultrasonographical and histological manifestations of molar and non-molar (NM) gestations and HMs subtypes makes accurate diagnosis challenging. Currently, immunohistochemical analysis of p57 and molecular genotyping have greatly improved the diagnostic accuracy.

AREAS COVERED

The differential expression of molecular biomarkers may be valuable for distinguishing among the subtypes of HMs and their mimics. Thus, biomarkers may be the key to refining HMs diagnosis. In this review, we summarize the current challenges in diagnosing HMs, and provide a critical overview of the recent literature about potential diagnostic biomarkers and their subclassifications. An online search on PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases was conducted from the inception to 1 April 2022.

EXPERT OPINION

the emerging biomarkers offer new possibilities to refine the diagnosis for HMs and pregnancy loss. Although the additional studies are required to be quantified and investigated in clinical trials to verify their diagnostic utility. It is important to explore, validate, and facilitate the wide adoption of newly developed biomarkers in the coming years.

Gestational Trophoblastic Disease: Contemporary Diagnostic Approach

Pathologic diagnosis of gestational trophoblastic disease (GTD)-hydatidiform moles and gestational trophoblastic neoplasms-underwent a major shift in the past decade from morphology-based recognition to precise molecular genetic classification of entities, which also allows for prognostic stratification of molar gestations. This article highlights these recent advances and their integration into the routine pathology practice. The traditional gross and histomorphologic features of each entity are also reviewed with special focus on differential diagnoses and their clinical implications.

Loss of p57 Expression in Conceptions Other Than Complete Hydatidiform Mole: A Case Series With Emphasis on the Etiology, Genetics, and Clinical Significance

Combined p57 immunohistochemistry and DNA genotyping refines classification of products of conception specimens into specific types of hydatidiform moles and various nonmolar entities that can simulate them. p57 expression is highly correlated with genotyping and in practice can reliably be used to identify virtually all complete hydatidiform moles (CHM), but aberrant retained or lost p57 expression in rare CHMs and partial hydatidiform moles (PHM), as well as loss in some nonmolar abortuses, has been reported. Among a series of 2329 products of conceptions, we identified 10 cases for which loss of p57 expression was inconsistent with genotyping results (none purely androgenetic). They displayed a spectrum of generally mild abnormal villous morphology but lacked better developed features of CHMs/early CHMs, although some did suggest subtle forms of the latter. For 5 cases, genotyping (4 cases) and/or ancillary testing (1 case) determined a mechanism for the aberrant p57 results. These included 3 PHMs-2 diandric triploid and 1 triandric tetraploid-and 1 nonmolar specimen with loss of p57 expression attributable to partial or complete loss of the maternal copy of chromosome 11 and 1 nonmolar specimen with Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome. For 5 cases, including 2 diandric triploid PHMs and 3 biparental nonmolar specimens, genotyping did not identify a mechanism, likely due to other genetic alterations which are below the resolution of or not targeted by genotyping. While overdiagnosis of a PHM as a CHM may cause less harm since appropriate follow-up with serum β-human chorionic gonadotropin levels would take place for both diagnoses, this could cause longer than necessary follow-up due to the expectation of a much greater risk of persistent gestational trophoblastic disease for CHM compared with PHM, which would be unfounded for the correct diagnosis of PHM. Overdiagnosis of a nonmolar abortus with loss of p57 expression as a CHM would lead to unnecessary follow-up and restriction on pregnancy attempts for patients with infertility. Genotyping is valuable for addressing discordance between p57 expression and morphology but cannot elucidate certain mechanisms of lost p57 expression. Future studies are warranted to determine whether chromosomal losses or gains, particularly involving imprinted genes such as p57, might play a role in modifying the risk of persistent gestational trophoblastic disease for PHMs and nonmolar conceptions that are not purely androgenetic but have some abnormal paternal imprinting of the type seen in CHMs.

Rare Complete Hydatidiform Mole With p57 Expression in Villous Mesenchyme: Case Report and Review of Discordant p57 Expression in Hydatidiform Moles

Complete hydatidiform mole (CHM) is a premalignant proliferative disease of the placenta characterized by misexpression of imprinted gene products, most notably p57. The majority of CHM exhibit immunohistochemical absence of p57 protein in villous mesenchyme (VM) and cytotrophoblast (CT) and are thus p57 VM/CT concordant. However, some gestations show loss of p57 in only VM or CT, either in all chorionic villi or a subset thereof (VM/CT discordant). Here, we present a rare case of a p57 VM/CT-discordant CHM with diffuse retention of p57 expression in VM but complete absence in CT. Histologically, the case exhibited typical features of CHM including trophoblast hyperplasia and severe nuclear atypia, but was unusual in the presence of gestational membranes identified ultrasonographically and histologically. Ploidy determination by FISH and genotyping by short tandem repeat analyses showed that this was a diploid gestation with variable allelic ratios and with an androgenetic lineage, similar to previously reported p57 VM/CT-discordant cases.

Genotyping diagnosis of gestational trophoblastic disease: frontiers in precision medicine

Investigations in recent decades have exploited tissue DNA genotyping as a powerful ancillary tool for the precision diagnosis and subclassification of gestational trophoblastic disease. As lesions of gestational origin, the inherited paternal genome, with or without copy number alterations, is the fundamental molecular basis for the diagnostic applications of DNA genotyping. Genotyping is now considered the gold standard in the confirmation and subtyping of sporadic hydatidiform moles. Although a precise diagnosis of partial mole requires DNA genotyping, prognostic stratification according to distinct genetic zygosity in complete moles has recently gained significant clinical relevance for patient care. Beyond hydatidiform moles, DNA genotyping has fundamental applications in the diagnosis or prognostic assessment of gestational trophoblastic tumors, in particular gestational choriocarcinoma. DNA genotyping provides a decisive tool in the separation of gestational trophoblastic neoplasia from non-gestational counterparts/mimics of either germ cell or somatic origin. The FIGO/WHO prognostic scoring scheme requires ascertaining the precise index gestational event and the time interval between the tumor and index gestation, where DNA genotyping can provide highly relevant information. With rapid acquisition of molecular diagnostic capabilities in the clinical practice, DNA genotyping has become closely integrated into the routine diagnostic workup of various forms of gestational trophoblastic disease.

Refined diagnosis of hydatidiform moles with p57 immunohistochemistry and molecular genotyping: updated analysis of a prospective series of 2217 cases

Immunohistochemical analysis of p57 expression and molecular genotyping accurately subclassify molar specimens into complete hydatidiform mole (CHM) and partial hydatidiform mole (PHM) and distinguish these from nonmolar specimens. Characteristics of a prospective series of potentially molar specimens analyzed in a large gynecologic pathology practice are summarized. Of 2217 cases (2160 uterine, 57 ectopic), 2080 (94%) were successfully classified: 571 CHMs (570 uterine, 1 ectopic), 498 PHMs (497 uterine, 1 ectopic), 900 nonmolar (including 147 trisomies, 19 digynic triploids, and 4 donor egg conceptions), and 56 androgenetic/biparental mosaics; 137 were complex or unsatisfactory and not definitively classified. CHMs dominated in patients aged < 21 and >45 years and were the only kind of molar conception found in the latter group. Of 564 successfully immunostained CHMs, 563 (99.8%) were p57-negative (1 p57-positive [retained maternal chromosome 11] androgenetic by genotyping). Of 153 genotyped CHMs, 148 (96.7%) were androgenetic (85% monospermic) and 5 were biparental, the latter likely familial biparental hydatidiform moles. Of 486 successfully immunostained PHMs, 481 (99%) were p57-positive (3 p57-negative [loss of maternal chromosome 11], 2 unknown mechanism). Of 497 genotyped PHMs, 484 (97%) were diandric triploid (99% dispermic) and 13 were triandric tetraploid (all at least dispermic). Of 56 androgenetic/biparental mosaics, 37 had a p57-negative complete molar component (16 confirmed as androgenetic by genotyping). p57 expression is highly correlated with genotyping, serving as a reliable marker for CHMs, and identifies molar components and androgenetic cell lines in mosaic conceptions. Correlation of morphology, p57 expression, genotyping data, and history are required to recognize familial biparental hydatidiform moles and donor egg conceptions, as the former can be misclassified as nonmolar and the latter can be misclassified as dispermic CHM on the basis of isolated genotyping results.

Genetics of gestational trophoblastic disease

The abnormal pregnancies complete and partial hydatidiform mole are genetically unusual, being associated with two copies of the paternal genome. Typical complete hydatidiform moles (CHMs) are diploid and androgenetic, while partial hydatidiform moles (PHMs) are diandric triploids. While diagnosis can usually be made on the basis of morphology, ancillary techniques that exploit their unusual genetic origin can be used to facilitate diagnosis. Genotyping and p57 immunostaining are now routinely used in the differential diagnosis of complete and partial hydatidiform moles, for investigating unusual mosaic or chimeric products of conception with a molar component and identifying the rare diploid, biparental HMs associated with an inherited predisposition to molar pregnancies. Genotyping also plays an important role in the differential diagnosis of gestational and non-gestational trophoblastic tumours and identification of the causative pregnancy where tumours are gestational. Recent developments include the use of cell-free DNA for non-invasive diagnosis of these conditions.

p57-discordant villi in hydropic products of conception: a clinicopathological study of 70 cases

p57 immunostaining is performed on hydropic products of conception to diagnose hydatidiform moles (HMs), which can progress to gestational trophoblastic neoplasia. Partial hydatidiform mole (PHM) and hydropic abortion (HA) display positive staining in stromal and cytotrophoblastic cells, whereas complete hydatidiform mole (CHM) is characterized by loss of p57 expression in both cell types. In some cases, an aberrant pattern is observed, called discordant p57 expression, with positive cytotrophoblast staining and negative stromal staining, or vice versa. The aim of this study was to describe the clinical, biological, and pathological characteristics of p57-discordant villi (p57DV) and other associated populations in cases of divergent p57 expression and to compare the evolutions of p57DV-associated and classic CHMs. Seventy cases of p57DV diagnosed by referent pathologists were divided into two groups, G1: p57DV ± non-CHM component (n = 22) and G2: p57DV + CHM component (n = 48). p57DV morphology was similar in the two groups. Observation of more than two populations and hybrid villi on p57 immunostaining were significantly more frequent in G2. The clinical, ultrasound, and biological presentations of p57DV-associated and classic CHMs were similar. The initial pathological diagnosis was more frequently incorrect, missing the CHM component, for the p57DV-associated CHMs. Molecular genotyping was informative in seven cases and identified as androgenetic/biparental mosaicism in four cases. These results show that p57DV are a diagnostic challenge for pathologists and that most are associated with a CHM component. However, the clinical management of p57DV-associated CHMs should be the same as that of classic CHMs.