Search

Vulvar high-grade neuroendocrine carcinomas (HGNECs) are rare and primarily thought to represent Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC). We present the clinicopathologic features of 16 such cases, the largest series to date. Patients were most often White, postmenopausal, and symptomatic from a palpable vulvar mass/nodule. Tumors ranged from 0.7 to 6 cm and most commonly involved the labium majus. Majority of the cases were pure HGNECs (15/16) with small cell (SC) morphology (14/16); 2 were large cell neuroendocrine carcinomas, of which 1 was combined with moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma. All tumors expressed synaptophysin. Of the 14 HGNECs with SC morphology, 6 were CK20-positive MCCs with characteristic CAM5.2 and neurofilament (NF) expression. Five of these MCCs were positive for Merkel cell polyoma virus large T-antigen (MCPyVLTAg). In contrast, 6 HGNECs with SC morphology were negative for CK20, NF, and MCPyVLTAg and classified as SCNECs. High-risk human papilloma virus was positive in all SCNECs and negative in all MCCs. One case of HGNEC with SC morphology could not be entirely characterized due to lack of tissue for ancillary testing. Five of 12 (42%) cases had a discrepant diagnosis initially rendered. Most patients (10/15) presented with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage III or IV disease. Usual sites of metastasis included inguinal lymph node, liver, bone, and lung. Twelve patients underwent surgery with adjuvant chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy, 1 received adjuvant immunotherapy, and 1 patient received neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery and adjuvant radiation therapy. Median overall survival was 24 months (range: 7 to 103 mo), and overall 5-year survival was 12% (95% confidence interval: 1% to 39%). In summary, vulvar HGNECs are rare, aggressive neoplasms that can be further subclassified into MCC, SCNEC, and large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma. CK20, CAM5.2, NF, TTF-1, MCPyVLTAg, and high-risk human papilloma virus facilitate the distinction of MCC from SCNEC. Proper identification of vulvar HGNECs is critical for patient management.

Although endometrial carcinoma (EC) is generally considered to have a good prognosis, over 20% of women with EC die of their disease, with a projected increase in both incidence and mortality over the next few decades. The aim of accurate prognostication is to ensure that patients receive optimal treatment and are neither overtreated nor undertreated, thereby improving patient outcomes overall. Patients with EC can be categorized into prognostic risk groups based on clinicopathologic findings. Other than tumor type and grade, groupings and recommended management algorithms may take into account age, body mass index, stage, and presence of lymphovascular space invasion. The molecular classification of EC that has emerged from the Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) study provides additional, potentially superior, prognostic information to traditional histologic typing and grading. This classifier does not, however, replace clinicopathologic risk assessment based on parameters other than histotype and grade. It is envisaged that molecular and clinicopathologic prognostic grouping systems will work better together than either alone. Thus, while tumor typing and grading may be superseded by a classification based on underlying genomic abnormalities, accurate assessment of other pathologic parameters will continue to be key to patient management. These include those factors related to staging, such as depth of myometrial invasion, cervical, vaginal, serosal surface, adnexal and parametrial invasion, and those independent of stage such as lymphovascular space invasion. Other prognostic parameters will also be discussed. These recommendations were developed from the International Society of Gynecological Pathologists Endometrial Carcinoma project.

In most cases of suspected endometrial neoplasia tumor origin can be correctly assigned according to a combination of clinical, radiologic, and pathologic features, even when the latter are based upon the examination of relatively small biopsy samples. However there are well-recognized exceptions to this rule which continue to create diagnostic difficulty, and sometimes difficulties persist even after the detailed examination of resection specimens. Among the most common problems encountered in practice are the distinction of primary endometrial and primary endocervical adenocarcinomas, and the determination of tumor origin when there is synchronous, multifocal involvement of gynecologic tract sites, for example the endometrium and the ovary. However, accurate diagnosis in these cases is important because this has significant staging, management and prognostic implications. In this review we discuss the value and limitations of key morphologic, immunophenotypic and molecular findings in these diagnostic scenarios.

This review of challenging diagnostic issues concerning high-grade endometrial carcinomas is derived from the authors’ review of the literature followed by discussions at the Endometrial Cancer Workshop sponsored by the International Society of Gynecological Pathologists in 2016. Recommendations presented are evidence-based, insofar as this is possible, given that the levels of evidence are weak or moderate due to small sample sizes and nonuniform diagnostic criteria used in many studies. High-grade endometrioid carcinomas include FIGO grade 3 endometrioid carcinomas, serous carcinomas, clear cell carcinomas, undifferentiated carcinomas, and carcinosarcomas. FIGO grade 3 endometrioid carcinoma is diagnosed when an endometrioid carcinoma exhibits >50% solid architecture (excluding squamous areas), or when an architecturally FIGO grade 2 endometrioid carcinoma exhibits marked cytologic atypia, provided that a glandular variant of serous carcinoma has been excluded. The most useful immunohistochemical studies to make the distinction between these 2 histotypes are p53, p16, DNA mismatch repair proteins, PTEN, and ARID1A. Endometrial clear cell carcinomas must display prototypical architectural and cytologic features for diagnosis. Immunohistochemical stains, including, Napsin A and p504s can be used as ancillary diagnostic tools; p53 expression is aberrant in a minority of clear cell carcinomas. Of note, clear cells are found in all types of high-grade endometrial carcinomas, leading to a tendency to overdiagnose clear cell carcinoma. Undifferentiated carcinoma (which when associated with a component of low-grade endometrioid carcinoma is termed “dedifferentiated carcinoma”) is composed of sheets of monotonous, typically dyscohesive cells, which can have a rhabdoid appearance; they often exhibit limited expression of cytokeratins and epithelial membrane antigen, are usually negative for PAX8 and hormone receptors, lack membranous e-cadherin and commonly demonstrate loss of expression of DNA mismatch repair proteins and SWI-SNF chromatin remodeling proteins. Carcinosarcomas must show unequivocal morphologic evidence of malignant epithelial and mesenchymal differentiation.

This article provides practical recommendations developed from the International Society of Gynecological Pathologists Endometrial Carcinoma Project to address 4 issues that may arise in the diagnosis of uterine corpus low-grade endometrioid carcinoma: (1) The distinction between atypical hyperplasia and low-grade endometrioid carcinoma. (2) The distinction between low-grade endometrioid carcinoma and serous carcinoma. (3) The distinction between corded and hyalinized or spindle cell variants of low-grade endometrioid carcinoma and carcinosarcoma. (4) The diagnostic criteria for mixed endometrial carcinomas, a rare entity that should be diagnosed only after exclusion of a spectrum of tumors including morphologic variants of endometrioid carcinoma, dedifferentiated endometrial carcinoma, carcinosarcoma, and endometrial carcinomas with ambiguous morphology.

Endometrial cancer is the most common gynecologic neoplasm in developed countries; however, updated universal guidelines are currently not available to handle specimens obtained during the surgical treatment of patients affected by this disease. This article presents recommendations on how to gross and submit sections for microscopic examination of hysterectomy specimens and other tissues removed during the surgical management of endometrial cancer such as salpingo-oophorectomy, omentectomy, and lymph node dissection—including sentinel lymph nodes. In addition, the intraoperative assessment of some of these specimens is addressed. These recommendations are based on a review of the literature, grossing manuals from various institutions, and a collaborative effort by a subgroup of the Endometrial Cancer Task Force of the International Society of Gynecological Pathologists. The aim of these recommendations is to standardize the processing of endometrial cancer specimens which is vital for adequate pathological reporting and will ultimately improve our understanding of this disease.

There have been significant advances in our understanding of the biology and classification of endometrial carcinoma, over the last few years, and the new prediction models proposed for prognostication. To accurately diagnose and stage tumors and apply these prediction models, it is necessary that there be standardized processing of specimens, and a common understanding and usage of the diagnostic terminology of endometrial carcinoma. The International Society of Gynecological Pathologists embarked on an ambitious project to achieve this goal in 2015. An early step in the process was to collect baseline information on existing practices with regard to the processing, diagnosis, and reporting of endometrial carcinomas among the members of the society. This was carried out using a web-based survey comprising 112 questions. The results are presented herein and reveal areas of uniformity but also areas of substantial variation among pathologists. The results of the survey assisted in developing the subsequent recommendations that follow as separate articles in this issue of the journal with regard to processing, diagnosis, and reporting of endometrial carcinomas.