Search

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(+)/mm 2 , TAMs PD-L1(+)/mm 2 H-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., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest All the authors present in his article declare no conflict of interests., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.)

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., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests All the authors present in this article declare no conflict of interests., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.)

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., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors report no declarations of interest. Declaration of interests All the Authors present in his article declare no conflict of interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.)

Background: In recent years, several studies investigated the complex process called "reprogramming" of seminoma (S) cells. The accepted pathogenetic model is a complex network including SOX2, SOX17, OCT3/4 and PRAME, which modulates the epigenetic transcription of numerous downstream genes and drives a divergent gene expression profile resulting in the transition from pure S (P-S) to S component (S-C) of mixed germ cell tumors of the testis (M-GCTT), and finally to embryonal carcinoma (EC). Herein, we tested a large cohort of GCTT with SOX2 and PRAME to evaluate their expression in the evolutionary steps of GCTT and verify if the modulation in the expression of these two molecules could be relevant for the fate of GCTT., Methods: We tested 43, 19 and 17 consecutive and retrospectively enrolled cases of GCTT, germ cell neoplasia in situ (GCNIS) and uninvolved background testes (UBT), respectively. SOX2 and PRAME expressions have been evaluated with H-score and compared by adopting the appropriate statistic tests (Student's t-test and Mann-Whitney U test)., Results: We found that SOX2 was more expressed by nonseminomatous-GCTT (NS-GCTT) (p < 0.001) and EC (p < 0.001) rather than S; by contrast, PRAME showed an opposite expression profile being expressed by S but not by NS-GCTT (p < 0.001) and EC (p < 0.001). S-C showed different expressions of SOX2 and PRAME compared to both P-S (p = 0.002 and <0.001, respectively) and EC (p < 0.001 and 0.042, respectively), with intermediate values between these latter two categories. GCNIS and UBT showed no expression of SOX2 (scattered positive Leydig cells) but high H-score levels of PRAME., Conclusions: SOX2 and PRAME are differentially expressed and specularly modulated during the "reprogramming" of S cells [P-S (high levels of PRAME, no expression/low levels of SOX2) → S-C (intermediate levels of PRAME, intermediate levels of SOX2) → EC (no expression/low levels of PRAME, high levels of SOX2)], therefore supporting a complex pathogenetic model where the interactions between these two molecules are crucial in determining the fate of GCTT., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest All the Authors present in this article declare NO CONFLICT OF INTERESTS., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier GmbH.)

Background: The differential diagnosis between flat urothelial lesions [reactive urothelial atypia (RUA), atypia of unknown significance (AUS), urothelial dysplasia (UD) and carcinoma in situ (CIS)] has relevant prognostic and therapeutic implications. This crucial distinction could be very challenging but it is currently performed on hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) slides, with a great amount of partially discordant and/or not conclusive findings of the potential adjunctive role of immunohistochemistry. Herein, we tested double staining (DS) for p53/CK20 to verify if p53(+) cells, CK20(+) cells and double-positive cells (DPCs) are differentially expressed among these lesions and if p53/CK20 could be a useful tool in this diagnostic setting., Methods: We tested 50, 9, 36 and 29 consecutive and retrospectively enrolled cases of RUA, AUS, UD and CIS, respectively. p53(+) cells, CK20(+) cells and DPCs were evaluated and compared by adopting the appropriate statistic tests (Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests)., Results: We found that p53(+) cells (p = 0.000), CK20(+) cells (p = 0.000) and DPCs (p = 0.000) showed statistically significant differences among the different flat urothelial lesions. Besides, when dichotomized, both CIS and RUA are easily differentiable from their histological mimickers adopting all these markers; by contrast, AUS and UD did not reach statistically significant differences able to differentiate them from each other [p53(+) cells, p = 0.123; CK20(+) cells, p = 0.567; DPCs, p = 0.409], except if compared to CIS [AUS VS CIS: p53(+) cells, p = 0.013; CK20(+) cells, p = 0.000; DPCs, p = 0.000; UD vs CIS: p53(+) cells, p = 0.000; CK20(+) cells, p = 0.000; DPCs, p = 0.000]., Conclusions: p53(+) cells, CK20(+) cells and DPCs are differently expressed by flat urothelial lesions and p53/CK20 could be a time- and money-saving tool for the appropriate management of these lesions if applied to a routine scenario., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.)