Locus/Chromosome Aberrations in Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasms Analyzed by Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization

The genetics of ductal adenocarcinoma of the pancreas in the year 2020: dramatic progress, but far to go

The publication of the "Pan-Cancer Atlas" by the Pan-Cancer Analysis of Whole Genomes Consortium, a partnership formed by The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC), provides a wonderful opportunity to reflect on where we stand in our understanding of the genetics of pancreatic cancer, as well as on the opportunities to translate this understanding to patient care. From germline variants that predispose to the development of pancreatic cancer, to somatic mutations that are therapeutically targetable, genetics is now providing hope, where there once was no hope, for those diagnosed with pancreatic cancer.

The Implication of Cytogenetic Alterations in Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma and Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasm Identified by Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization and Their Potential Diagnostic Utility

Background/Aims

We investigated chromosomal aberrations in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) to identify cytogenetic changes and molecular markers that may be useful for preoperative diagnosis.

Methods

Tissue samples from 48 PDAC and 17 IPMN patients were investigated by FISH analysis using probes targeting chromosomes 7q, 17p, 18q, 20q, and 21q and the pericentromeric region of chromosome 18 (CEP18).

Results

The PDAC samples harbored 17p deletion (95.8%), 18q deletion (83.3%), CEP18 deletion (81.2%), 20q gain (81.2%), 21q deletion (77.1%), and 7q gain (70.8%). The IPMN samples had 17p deletion (94.1%), CEP18 deletion (94.1%), 21q deletion (70.6%), 18q deletion (58.8%), 20q gain (58.8%), and 7q gain (58.8%). A significant difference in CEP18 gain was identified between the PDAC and IPMN groups (p=0.029). Detection of 17p or 18q deletion had the highest diagnostic accuracy (80.0%) for PDAC.

Conclusions

Chromosomal alterations were frequently identified in both PDAC and IPMN with similar patterns. CEP18 gain and 17p and 18q deletions might be involved in the later stages of PDAC tumorigenesis. Chromosome 17p and 18q deletions might be excellent diagnostic markers.

An Increased Chromosome 7 Copy Number in Endoscopic Bile Duct Biopsy Specimens Is Predictive of a Poor Prognosis in Cholangiocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

The ability of fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) assays in endoscopic transpapillary bile duct biopsy specimens to predict the prognosis of cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) has not been elucidated.

AIMS

We aimed to clarify the association between the results of UroVysion FISH assays and the prognosis of CCA.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 49 specimens obtained by transpapillary forceps biopsy from consecutive patients with CCA. The copy numbers of chromosomes 3, 7, and 17 were evaluated by FISH assay using UroVysion. We compared the overall survival (OS) of CCA patients with and without increased copy numbers of chromosomes 3, 7, and 17. Furthermore, we evaluated the association between OS and the clinicopathological parameters of CCA patients.

RESULTS

The OS was significantly shorter in patients with than without an increased chromosome 7 copy number (log-rank p = 0.015; median OS 11.9 vs. 20.7 months). In the univariate analyses, age (p = 0.012), ECOG performance status (p = 0.046), tumor stage (p = 0.046), surgery (p = 0.006), and an increased chromosome 7 copy number (p = 0.017) were significantly associated with OS. The multivariate analysis revealed that an increased chromosome 7 copy number (hazard ratio, 2.46; 95% CI 1.15-5.27; p = 0.021) and advanced clinical stage (hazard ratio, 2.26; 95% CI 1.11-4.63; p = 0.025) were independently predictive of a poor OS.

CONCLUSIONS

Detection by FISH assay of an increased chromosome 7 copy number in transpapillary forceps biopsy specimens is predictive of a poor prognosis in CCA patients.

Copy number gain of chromosome 3q is a recurrent event in patients with intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) associated with disease progression

Background

Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) is the most common cystic preneoplastic lesion of pancreatic cancer. We used an approach coupling high resolution cytogenetic analysis (Affymetrix Oncoscan FFPE Array) with clinically-oriented bioinformatic interpretation of data to understand the most relevant alterations of precursor lesions at different stages to identify new diagnostic markers.

Results

We identified multiple copy number alterations, particularly in lesions with severe dysplasia, with 7 IPMN with low-intermediate dysplasia carrying a nearly normal karyotype and 13 IPMN with complex Karyotype (> 4 alterations), showing high grade dysplasia. A specific gain of chromosome arm 3q was found in IPMN with complex Karyotype (92%). This gain of 3q is particularly interesting for the presence of oncogenes such as PIK3CA, GATA2 and TERC that are part of pathways that deregulate cell growth and promote disease progression. Quantitative PCR and FISH analysis confirmed the data. Further demonstration of the overexpression of the PIK3CA gene supports the identification of this alteration as a possible biomarker in the early identification of patients with IPMN at higher risk for disease progression.

Materials and methods

High resolution cytogenetic analysis was performed in 20 formalin fixed paraffin embedded samples of IPMN by Oncoscan FFPE assay. Results were validated by qPCR and FISH analysis.

Conclusions

The identification of these markers at an early stage of disease onset could help to identify patients at risk for cancer progression and new candidates for a more specific targeted therapy.

Imaging modalities for characterising focal pancreatic lesions

BACKGROUND

Increasing numbers of incidental pancreatic lesions are being detected each year. Accurate characterisation of pancreatic lesions into benign, precancerous, and cancer masses is crucial in deciding whether to use treatment or surveillance. Distinguishing benign lesions from precancerous and cancerous lesions can prevent patients from undergoing unnecessary major surgery. Despite the importance of accurately classifying pancreatic lesions, there is no clear algorithm for management of focal pancreatic lesions.

OBJECTIVES

To determine and compare the diagnostic accuracy of various imaging modalities in detecting cancerous and precancerous lesions in people with focal pancreatic lesions.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and Science Citation Index until 19 July 2016. We searched the references of included studies to identify further studies. We did not restrict studies based on language or publication status, or whether data were collected prospectively or retrospectively.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We planned to include studies reporting cross-sectional information on the index test (CT (computed tomography), MRI (magnetic resonance imaging), PET (positron emission tomography), EUS (endoscopic ultrasound), EUS elastography, and EUS-guided biopsy or FNA (fine-needle aspiration)) and reference standard (confirmation of the nature of the lesion was obtained by histopathological examination of the entire lesion by surgical excision, or histopathological examination for confirmation of precancer or cancer by biopsy and clinical follow-up of at least six months in people with negative index tests) in people with pancreatic lesions irrespective of language or publication status or whether the data were collected prospectively or retrospectively.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently searched the references to identify relevant studies and extracted the data. We planned to use the bivariate analysis to calculate the summary sensitivity and specificity with their 95% confidence intervals and the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) to compare the tests and assess heterogeneity, but used simpler models (such as univariate random-effects model and univariate fixed-effect model) for combining studies when appropriate because of the sparse data. We were unable to compare the diagnostic performance of the tests using formal statistical methods because of sparse data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 54 studies involving a total of 3,196 participants evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of various index tests. In these 54 studies, eight different target conditions were identified with different final diagnoses constituting benign, precancerous, and cancerous lesions. None of the studies was of high methodological quality. None of the comparisons in which single studies were included was of sufficiently high methodological quality to warrant highlighting of the results. For differentiation of cancerous lesions from benign or precancerous lesions, we identified only one study per index test. The second analysis, of studies differentiating cancerous versus benign lesions, provided three tests in which meta-analysis could be performed. The sensitivities and specificities for diagnosing cancer were: EUS-FNA: sensitivity 0.79 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07 to 1.00), specificity 1.00 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.00); EUS: sensitivity 0.95 (95% CI 0.84 to 0.99), specificity 0.53 (95% CI 0.31 to 0.74); PET: sensitivity 0.92 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.97), specificity 0.65 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.84). The third analysis, of studies differentiating precancerous or cancerous lesions from benign lesions, only provided one test (EUS-FNA) in which meta-analysis was performed. EUS-FNA had moderate sensitivity for diagnosing precancerous or cancerous lesions (sensitivity 0.73 (95% CI 0.01 to 1.00) and high specificity 0.94 (95% CI 0.15 to 1.00), the extremely wide confidence intervals reflecting the heterogeneity between the studies). The fourth analysis, of studies differentiating cancerous (invasive carcinoma) from precancerous (dysplasia) provided three tests in which meta-analysis was performed. The sensitivities and specificities for diagnosing invasive carcinoma were: CT: sensitivity 0.72 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.87), specificity 0.92 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.97); EUS: sensitivity 0.78 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.94), specificity 0.91 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.98); EUS-FNA: sensitivity 0.66 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.99), specificity 0.92 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.98). The fifth analysis, of studies differentiating cancerous (high-grade dysplasia or invasive carcinoma) versus precancerous (low- or intermediate-grade dysplasia) provided six tests in which meta-analysis was performed. The sensitivities and specificities for diagnosing cancer (high-grade dysplasia or invasive carcinoma) were: CT: sensitivity 0.87 (95% CI 0.00 to 1.00), specificity 0.96 (95% CI 0.00 to 1.00); EUS: sensitivity 0.86 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.92), specificity 0.91 (95% CI 0.83 to 0.96); EUS-FNA: sensitivity 0.47 (95% CI 0.24 to 0.70), specificity 0.91 (95% CI 0.32 to 1.00); EUS-FNA carcinoembryonic antigen 200 ng/mL: sensitivity 0.58 (95% CI 0.28 to 0.83), specificity 0.51 (95% CI 0.19 to 0.81); MRI: sensitivity 0.69 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.86), specificity 0.93 (95% CI 0.43 to 1.00); PET: sensitivity 0.90 (95% CI 0.79 to 0.96), specificity 0.94 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.99). The sixth analysis, of studies differentiating cancerous (invasive carcinoma) from precancerous (low-grade dysplasia) provided no tests in which meta-analysis was performed. The seventh analysis, of studies differentiating precancerous or cancerous (intermediate- or high-grade dysplasia or invasive carcinoma) from precancerous (low-grade dysplasia) provided two tests in which meta-analysis was performed. The sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing cancer were: CT: sensitivity 0.83 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.92), specificity 0.83 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.93) and MRI: sensitivity 0.80 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.92), specificity 0.81 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.95), respectively. The eighth analysis, of studies differentiating precancerous or cancerous (intermediate- or high-grade dysplasia or invasive carcinoma) from precancerous (low-grade dysplasia) or benign lesions provided no test in which meta-analysis was performed.There were no major alterations in the subgroup analysis of cystic pancreatic focal lesions (42 studies; 2086 participants). None of the included studies evaluated EUS elastography or sequential testing.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We were unable to arrive at any firm conclusions because of the differences in the way that study authors classified focal pancreatic lesions into cancerous, precancerous, and benign lesions; the inclusion of few studies with wide confidence intervals for each comparison; poor methodological quality in the studies; and heterogeneity in the estimates within comparisons.