Beta-Catenin Alterations in Postchemotherapy Yolk Sac Tumor, Postpubertal-Type With Enteroblastic Features.

Postchemotherapy postpubertal-type yolk sac tumors (YST) with glandular and solid phenotypes are aggressive and commonly resistant to systemic chemotherapy. These neoplasms show morphologic features that significantly overlap with those of somatic carcinomas with "enteroblastic" or "fetal" phenotype (the preferred terminology depends on the site of origin). They often present as late or very late recurrences, and their diagnosis is challenging because they frequently affect patients in an age group at risk for carcinomas of somatic origin. Recently, we incidentally identified examples of postchemotherapy glandular and solid YST with "enteroblastic" phenotypes and nuclear expression of beta-catenin, prompting us to further evaluate the prevalence of this phenomenon. We found nuclear expression of beta-catenin in 10 (29%) of 34 such tumors. A subset of cases with nuclear beta-catenin expression was further analyzed with a DNA sequencing panel (n = 6) and fluorescence in situ hybridization for isochromosome 12p [i(12p); n = 5]. Sequencing identified exon 3 CTNNB1 variants in 3 (50%) of 6 analyzed cases, and fluorescence in situ hybridization was positive for i(12p) in 5 of 5 cases. In conclusion, a significant subset of postchemotherapy YST with glandular or solid architecture and "enteroblastic" phenotype demonstrates beta-catenin alterations, suggesting that activation of Wnt signaling may play a role in the progression of these neoplasms. Moreover, nuclear beta-catenin expression in these tumors represents a potential diagnostic pitfall given that carcinomas of true somatic origin with overlapping morphology may also be positive for this marker.

Histopathology of growth hormone-secreting pituitary tumors: State of the art and new perspectives.

Somatotroph (GH) adenomas/PitNETs typically arise from adenohypophysis and are biochemically active, leading to acromegaly and gigantism. More rarely, they present with ectopic origin and do not present overt biochemical or clinical features (silent variants). Histopathological examination should consider the clinical and radiological background, and include multiple steps assessing tumor morphology, pituitary transcription factors (PTFs), hormone secretion, proliferation markers, granulation, and somatostatin receptors (STRs), aimed at depicting as better as possible tumor origin (in case of non-functioning and/or metastatic tumor), and clinical behavior, including response to treatment. GH-secreting tumors are part of the Pit-1 family tumors and can secrete GH only (pure somatotrophs) or co-secrete prolactin (mixed tumors; in this case, various histological subtypes have been identified). Each subtype presents unique radiological, biochemical, and clinical characteristic. Therefore, the integration of biochemical, clinical, radiological, and histopathological elements is fundamental for proper diagnosis and management of pituitary adenomas/PitNETs, to be performed in referral Centers. In more recent times, the importance of genetic and epigenetic evaluation in the characterization of pituitary tumors (i.e., early identification of aggressive variants) has been outlined by some large studies, with the intention of improving targeted treatments.

Could double stain for p53/CK20 be a useful diagnostic tool for the appropriate classification of flat urothelial lesions?

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.