Immunohistochemical Expression of Preferentially Expressed Antigen in Melanoma (PRAME) in the Uninvolved Background Testis, Germ Cell Neoplasia In Situ, and Germ Cell Tumors of the Testis

Expression of Preferentially Expressed Antigen in Melanoma, a Cancer/Testis Antigen, in Carcinoma In Situ of the Urinary Tract

Carcinoma in situ (CIS) of the urinary tract comprises 1-3% of all urothelial malignancies and is often a precursor to muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma (UC). This study aimed to examine the expression profiles of preferentially expressed antigen in melanoma (PRAME), a cancer/testis antigen, and assess its diagnostic and therapeutic applications in CIS, given that its expression in UC has been minimally studied and has not yet been analyzed in CIS. We selected consecutive patients with CIS who underwent biopsy and/or transurethral tumor resection at the Osaka Medical and Pharmaceutical University Hospital. Immunohistochemical staining for PRAME and p53 was performed. Overall, 53 patients with CIS (6 females and 47 males) were included. Notably, PRAME expression was observed in 23 of the 53 patients (43.4%), whereas it was absent in the non-neoplastic urothelial epithelium. Furthermore, no correlation was found between PRAME expression and aberrant p53 expression. Therefore, PRAME expression may serve as a useful marker for CIS of the urinary tract. Furthermore, PRAME may be a candidate for the novel therapeutic target for standard treatment-refractory CIS patients.

Exploring the Complex and Multifaceted Interplay between Melanoma Cells and the Tumor Microenvironment

Malignant melanoma is a very aggressive skin cancer, characterized by a heterogeneous nature and high metastatic potential. The incidence of melanoma is continuously increasing worldwide, and it is one of the most common cancers in young adults. In the past twenty years, our understanding of melanoma biology has increased profoundly, and disease management for patients with disseminated disease has improved due to the emergence of immunotherapy and targeted therapy. However, a significant fraction of patients relapse or do not respond adequately to treatment. This can partly be explained by the complex signaling between the tumor and its microenvironment, giving rise to melanoma phenotypes with different patterns of disease progression. This review focuses on the key aspects and complex relationship between pathogenesis, genetic abnormalities, tumor microenvironment, cellular plasticity, and metabolic reprogramming in melanoma. By acquiring a deeper understanding of the multifaceted features of melanomagenesis, we can reach a point of more individualized and patient-centered disease management and reduced costs of ineffective treatments.

FoxA2 is a reliable marker for the diagnosis of yolk sac tumour postpubertal-type

AIMS

Yolk sac tumour postpubertal-type (YSTpt) shows a wide range of histological patterns and is challenging to diagnose. Recently, forkhead box transcription factor A2 (FoxA2) emerged as a driver of YSTpt formation and a promising marker for diagnosing YSTpt. However, FoxA2 has not been tested in the different patterns of YSTpt. This study aimed to assess the staining pattern of FoxA2 in te different patterns of YSTpt and other germ cell tumours of the testis (GCTT), comparing it with glypican-3 (GPC3) and α-fetoprotein (AFP).

METHODS AND RESULTS

FOXA2, GPC3 and AFP immunohistochemistry was performed on 24 YSTpt (24 microcystic/reticular, 10 myxoid, two macrocystic, five glandular/alveolar, two endodermal sinus/perivascular, four solid, two polyembryoma/embryoid body and two polyvesicular vitelline) and 81 other GCTT. The percentage of positive cells (0, 1+, 2+, 3+) and the intensity (0, 1, 2, 3) were evaluated regardless of and within each YSTpt pattern. FoxA2 was positive in all YSTpt (24 of 24) and all but one (23 of 24) exhibited 2+/3+ stain, with higher intensity [median value (mv): 2.6] than AFP (1.8) and GPC3 (2.5). Both FoxA2 and GPC3 were positive in all microcystic/reticular (24 of 24), myxoid (10 of 10), macrocystic (two of two), endodermal sinus/perivascular (four of four) and polyembryoma/embryoid body (two of two) patterns. Nevertheless, only FoxA2 was positive in all glandular/alveolar (five of five), solid (four of four) and polyvesicular vitelline (two of two) patterns. The intensity of FoxA2 was higher than AFP and GPC3 in almost all YST patterns. In the other GCTT, FoxA2 was positive only in teratoma postpubertal-type (Tpt) [13 of 20 (65%)], with staining almost exclusively confined to the mature gastrointestinal/respiratory tract epithelium.

CONCLUSIONS

FoxA2 is a highly sensitive and specific biomarker that supports the diagnosis of YSTpt. FoxA2 is superior to GPC3 and AFP, especially in rare and difficult-to-diagnose histological patterns of YSTpt, but mature glands of Tpt could represent a potential diagnostic pitfall.

TAMs PD-L1(+) in the reprogramming of germ cell tumors of the testis

BACKGROUND

In recent years, several studies focused on the process of reprogramming of seminoma (S) cells, which regulates the transition from pure S (P-S) to S component (S-C) of mixed germ cell tumors of the testis (GCTT) and finally to embryonal carcinoma (EC) and other nonseminomatous GCTT (NS-GCTT). The accepted pathogenetic model is driven and regulated by cells (macrophages, B- and T-lymphocytes) and molecules of the tumor microenvironment (TME). Herein, we tested a series of GCTT with double staining (DS) for CD68-PD-L1 to evaluate tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) expressing programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) [TAMs PD-L1(+)] and clarify if these cells may be involved in establishing the fate of GCTT.

METHODS

We collected 45 GCTT (comprising a total of 62 different components of GCTT). TAMs PD-L1(+) were evaluated with three different scoring systems [TAMs PD-L1(+)/mm², TAMs PD-L1(+)/mm²H-score, TAMs PD-L1(+) %], and compared using pertinent statistic tests (Student's t-test and Mann-Whitney U test).

RESULTS

We found that TAMs PD-L1(+) values were higher in S rather than EC (p = 0.001, p = 0.015, p = 0.022) and NS-GCTT (p < 0.001). P-S showed statistically significant differences in TAMs PD-L1(+) values compared to S-C (p < 0.001, p = 0.006, p = 0.015), but there were no differences between S-C and EC (p = 0.107, p = 0.408, p = 0.800). Finally, we found statistically significant differences also in TAMs PD-L1(+) values between EC and other NS-GCTT (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

TAMs PD-L1(+) levels gradually decrease during the reprogramming of S cells {P-S [(high values of TAMs PD-L1(+)] → S-C and EC [(intermediate values of TAMs PD-L1(+)] → other NS-GCTT [(low values of TAMs PD-L1(+)], supporting a complex pathogenetic model where the interactions between tumor cells and TME components [and specifically TAMs PD-L1(+)] play a key role in determining the fate of GCTT.

PRAME Expression in Mucosal Melanoma of the Head and Neck Region

PRAME (PReferentially expressed Antigen in MElanoma), a cancer-testis antigen expressed in normal and neoplastic tissues with several functions, proved to be a useful diagnostic tool in the differential diagnosis between benign and malignant melanocytic lesions. The current study aims to perform PRAME stain on a retrospective case series of mucosal melanocytic tumors of the head and neck region to compare 3 different scores and evaluate the most reliable one in this diagnostic set. Immunohistochemical analysis for PRAME was performed in 54 benign and malignant mucosal melanocytic tumors of the head and neck region collected from 41 patients. The best-performing cutoff of PRAME-positive cells (nuclear stain) to differentiate benign and malignant mucosal melanocytic tumors of the head and neck region is that proposed by Raghavan and colleagues (<60%/≥60% of PRAME-positive cells), with 100% and 77.8% of benign lesions and malignant tumors respectively correctly identified. Applying this score, PRAME stain showed the best results (sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and positive and negative predictive values) for the diagnosis of head and neck melanocytic tumors. However, a subset of PRAME-negative malignant tumors was identified, especially located in the palatal area (hard and soft palate). Finally, high PRAME expression (≥60%) was associated with specific sites (nasal cavity/nasal septum/turbinates nasopharynx, and the maxillary sinus), nodular histotype, and female sex.

Epigenetic Regulation of Driver Genes in Testicular Tumorigenesis

In testicular germ cell tumor type II (TGCT), a seminoma subtype expresses an induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC) panel with four upregulated genes, OCT4/POU5F1, SOX17, KLF4, and MYC, and embryonal carcinoma (EC) has four upregulated genes, OCT4/POU5F1, SOX2, LIN28, and NANOG. The EC panel can reprogram cells into iPSC, and both iPSC and EC can differentiate into teratoma. This review summarizes the literature on epigenetic regulation of the genes. Epigenetic mechanisms, such as methylations of cytosines on the DNA string and methylations and acetylations of histone 3 lysines, regulate expression of these driver genes between the TGCT subtypes. In TGCT, the driver genes contribute to well-known clinical characteristics and the driver genes are also important for aggressive subtypes of many other malignancies. In conclusion, epigenetic regulation of the driver genes are important for TGCT and for oncology in general.

H&E and OCT4/CD34 for the assessment of lympho-vascular invasion in seminoma and embryonal carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Lymphovascular invasion (LVI) is a relevant prognostic factor in germ cell tumors of the testis (GCTT), and it is included in the pT stage. However, its detection on hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) slides is very challenging, and previous studies reported fair to moderate inter-observer agreement among dedicated uropathologists. In the present study, we tested H&E and a recently developed in-house double staining for OCT4/CD34 to detect LVI in GCTT.

METHODS

Nine authors [5 non-uropathologists and 4 uropathologists] independently evaluated 34 consecutive and retrospectively enrolled cases of GCTT. We assessed the inter-observer agreement (Fleiss's Kappa) with both H&E and OCT4/CD34. Besides, we compared the consensus diagnosis on both H&E and OCT4/CD34-stained sections with the original diagnosis to evaluate the pT re-staging (McNemar test) and identify the sources of disagreement.

RESULTS

The inter-observer agreement among uropathologists plus non-uropathologists was fair with both H&E (KF=0.398; p < 0.001) and OCT4/CD34 (KF=0.312; p < 0.001). OCT4/CD34 (KF=0.290; p < 0.001) slightly reduces the inter-observer agreement compared to H&E (KF=0.321; p < 0.001) for non-uropathologists; in contrast, OCT4/CD34 (KF=0.293; p < 0.001) significantly reduces the inter-observer agreement compared to H&E (KF=0.529; p < 0.001) for uropathologists, changing it from moderate to fair. Consensus diagnosis with H&E modified the LVI status of the original diagnosis in 8/34 (23.5 %) cases (p: 0.070), with pT re-staging in 2/34 (5.9 %) cases (p: 0.500). Consensus diagnosis with OCT4/CD34 modified the LVI status of the original diagnosis in 8/34 (23.5 %) cases (p: 0.289), with pT re-staging in 3/34 (8.8 %) cases (p: 0.250). The consensus diagnosis with OCT4/CD34 modified the consensus diagnosis with H&E in 8/34 (23.5 %) cases (p: 0.727), and these findings resulted in pT-restaging in 3/34 (8.8 %) cases (p: 0.500). The sources of disagreement among uropathologists were: H&E [artefactual clefts misinterpreted as LVI in 4/6 (66.7 %) cases and true foci of LVI misinterpreted as clusters of histiocytes within the vessels in 2/6 (33.3 %) cases], OCT4/CD34 [artefactual clefts misinterpreted as LVI in 2/8 (25 %) cases, true LVI misinterpreted as artefactual clefts in 2/8 (25 %) cases or floaters in 4/8 (50 %) cases].

CONCLUSIONS

OCT4/CD34 does not improve the inter-observer agreement for the assessment of LVI in OCT4(+) GCTT. Consensus diagnosis with H&E modifies the LVI status in a significant number of cases, resulting in changes of the pT stage in a relatively small subgroup. Consensus diagnosis with OCT4/CD34 provides little additional benefit since it cannot exclude mimickers of LVI such as floaters and artefactual clefts. These results argue against the adoption of this diagnostic tool for the routine assessment of OCT4(+) GCTT.

Yolk sac tumor of postpubertal-type does not exhibit immunohistochemical loss of SMARCB1/INI1 and SMARCA4/BRG1…but choriocarcinoma?

The recently described SWI/SNF complex-deficient sinonasal carcinoma (SMARCB1 & SMARCA4) may exhibit a yolk sac-like morphology. Tumors with similar features (yolk sac-like histology combined with the immunohistochemical loss of SMARCB1/INI1 and/or SMARCA4/BRG1) have also been described in other sites, such as the female genital tract. In this study, we immunohistochemically assessed SMARCB1/INI1 and SMARCA4/BRG1 expression to evaluate if these proteins could be involved in the pathogenesis of testicular yolk sac tumors of postpubertal type (YSTpt). Specifically, we analyzed a retrospective case series comprising pure YSTpt and mixed germ cell tumors of the testis (GCTT) with YSTpt components. In the present study, no testicular YSTpt showed loss of SMARCB1/INI1 (0/24, 0%) or SMARCA4/BRG1 (0/24, 0%). However, testicular choriocarcinoma (CHC) and isolated syncytiotrophoblast cells (iSTCs) demonstrated abnormal staining patterns for SMARCA4/BRG1 [CHC: 4/4 (100%); iSTCs: 12/12 (100%), respectively], including focal or diffuse loss of expression in a subset of cases. The results of our study suggest that functional loss of SMARCA4/BRG1 represents a recurrent event that may be relevant for the pathogenesis of a subset of testicular CHC.

Cutaneous Melanomas: A Single Center Experience on the Usage of Immunohistochemistry Applied for the Diagnosis

Cutaneous melanoma (cM) is the deadliest of all primary skin cancers. Its prognosis is strongly influenced by the stage at diagnosis, with early stages having a good prognosis and being potentially treatable with surgery alone; advanced stages display a much worse prognosis, with a high rate of recurrence and metastasis. For this reason, the accurate and early diagnosis of cM is crucial-misdiagnosis may have extremely dangerous consequences for the patient and drastically reduce their chances of survival. Although the histological exam remains the "gold standard" for the diagnosis of cM, a continuously increasing number of immunohistochemical markers that could help in diagnosis, prognostic characterization, and appropriate therapeutical choices are identified every day, with some of them becoming part of routine practice. This review aims to discuss and summarize all the data related to the immunohistochemical analyses that are potentially useful for the diagnosis of cM, thus rendering it easier to appropriately applicate to routine practice. We will discuss these topics, as well as the role of these molecules in the biology of cM and potential impact on diagnosis and treatment, integrating the literature data with the experience of our surgical pathology department.

Differential expression of preferentially expressed antigen in melanoma (PRAME) in testicular germ cell tumors - A comparative study with SOX17

The accurate identification of different components in testicular germ cell tumors (GCT) is essential for tailoring treatment and informing the clinical prognosis. PRAME (preferentially expressed antigen in melanoma), a member in the family of cancer testis antigens, plays critical roles in regulating pluripotency and suppressing somatic/germ cell differentiation in seminomas (SEM). To investigate the potential diagnostic value of PRAME in testicular GCT, here we comparatively examined the expression patterns of PRAME and SOX17 by immunohistochemistry in both pure and mixed GCT. Tissue microarrays constructed from 66 pure or mixed GCT were examined, including 25 seminomas (13 pure and 12 mixed), 35 embryonal carcinomas (EC; 7 pure and 28 mixed), 23 teratomas (TER; 10 pure and 13 mixed), 15 yolk sac tumors (YST; 1 pure and 14 mixed), and 5 choriocarcinomas (CC; 1 pure and 4 mixed), with 11 germ cell neoplasia in situ (GCNIS) and 6 normal testicular tissue as controls. The expression levels of PRAME or SOX17 were evaluated by a scoring system counting for intensity and extent of staining. PRAME nuclear expression was present in 92% (23/25) of SEM, including all 13 pure SEM, and 10 out of 12 seminomatous component of mixed GCT. In contrast, all EC and TER were completely negative for PRAME, and focal expression was demonstrated in 33.3% of YST and 20% of CC. As for SOX17, 96% of SEM and 73% of YST stained positively, whereas EC and CC were negative. Focal nuclear positivity was identified in the epithelial cell component of 17.4% (4/23) of TER. We found the sensitivity of PRAME to detect SEM to be comparable to SOX17, although SOX17 staining is more diffuse and stronger in the majority of cases. The specificity of PRAME for SEM appeared to be superior to that of SOX17 (92% versus 81%). In conclusion, PRAME is preferentially expressed in SEM or within the seminomatous component of mixed GCT with only focal variable expression in YST and CC, but shows no expression in EC and TER. These findings suggest that PRAME can be explored as a diagnostic marker for SEM.