Genomic and epigenomic basis of breast invasive lobular carcinomas lacking CDH1 genetic alterations.

CDH1 (E-cadherin) bi-allelic inactivation is the hallmark alteration of breast invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC), resulting in its discohesive phenotype. A subset of ILCs, however, lack CDH1 genetic/epigenetic inactivation, and their genetic underpinning is unknown. Through clinical targeted sequencing data reanalysis of 364 primary ILCs, we identified 25 ILCs lacking CDH1 bi-allelic genetic alterations. CDH1 promoter methylation was frequent (63%) in these cases. Targeted sequencing reanalysis revealed 3 ILCs harboring AXIN2 deleterious fusions (n = 2) or loss-of-function mutation (n = 1). Whole-genome sequencing of 3 cases lacking bi-allelic CDH1 genetic/epigenetic inactivation confirmed the AXIN2 mutation and no other cell-cell adhesion genetic alterations but revealed a new CTNND1 (p120) deleterious fusion. AXIN2 knock-out in MCF7 cells resulted in lobular-like features, including increased cellular migration and resistance to anoikis. Taken together, ILCs lacking CDH1 genetic/epigenetic alterations are driven by inactivating alterations in other cell adhesion genes (CTNND1 or AXIN2), endorsing a convergent phenotype in ILC.

Nonlobular Invasive Breast Carcinomas with Biallelic Pathogenic CDH1 Somatic Alterations: A Histologic, Immunophenotypic, and Genomic Characterization.

CDH1 encodes for E-cadherin, and its loss of function is the hallmark of invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC). Albeit vanishingly rare, biallelic CDH1 alterations may be found in nonlobular breast carcinomas (NL-BCs). We sought to determine the clinicopathologic characteristics and repertoire of genetic alterations of NL-BCs harboring CDH1 biallelic genetic alterations. Analysis of 5842 breast cancers (BCs) subjected to clinical tumor-normal sequencing with an FDA-cleared multigene panel was conducted to identify BCs with biallelic CDH1 pathogenic/likely pathogenic somatic mutations lacking lobular features. The genomic profiles of NL-BCs with CDH1 biallelic genetic alterations were compared with those of ILCs and invasive ductal carcinomas (IDCs), matched by clinicopathologic characteristics. Of the 896 CDH1-altered BCs, 889 samples were excluded based on the diagnosis of invasive mixed ductal/lobular carcinoma or ILC or the detection of monoallelic CDH1 alterations. Only 7 of the 5842 (0.11%) BCs harbored biallelic CDH1 alterations and lacked lobular features. Of these, 4/7 (57%) cases were ER-positive/HER2-negative, 1/7 (14%) was ER-positive/HER2-positive, and 2/7 (29%) were ER-negative/HER2-negative. In total, 5/7 (71%) were of Nottingham grade 2, and 2/7 (29%) were of grade 3. The NL-BCs with CDH1 biallelic genetic alterations included a mucinous carcinoma (n = 1), IDCs with focal nested growth (n = 2), IDC with solid papillary (n = 1) or apocrine (n = 2) features, and an IDC of no special type (NST; n = 1). E-cadherin expression, as detected by immunohistochemistry, was absent (3/5) or aberrant (discontinuous membranous/cytoplasmic/granular; 2/5). However, NL-BCs with CDH1 biallelic genetic alterations displayed recurrent genetic alterations, including TP53, PIK3CA (57%, 4/7; each), FGFR1, and NCOR1 (28%, 2/7, each) alterations. Compared with CDH1 wild-type IDC-NSTs, NL-BCs less frequently harbored GATA3 mutations (0% vs 47%, P = .03), but no significant differences were detected when compared with matched ILCs. Therefore, NL-BCs with CDH1 biallelic genetic alterations are vanishingly rare, predominantly comprise IDCs with special histologic features, and have genomic features akin to luminal B ER-positive BCs.

Second-Opinion Subspecialty Consultations in Musculoskeletal Radiology.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to evaluate the significance of subspecialty second-opinion consultations for CT and MRI examinations in musculoskeletal (MSK) radiology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All 3165 MSK CT and MRI examinations referred to one academic institution for second-opinion consultation during a 24-month period were reviewed by three MSK-trained radiologists. Outside and inside reports were compared by two independent MSK radiology fellows using a previously published 5-point scale. Clinically important differences (categories 4 and 5) were defined as those likely to change patient management. Statistical comparisons of rates were performed using a chi-square test with Bonferroni corrections. Interobserver reliability was reported using linear weighted kappa statistics and the percentage of agreement. RESULTS: Of all second-opinion examinations, 73.5% (2326/3165) had an outside report available for comparison and inclusion in this study. There were 610 of 2326 (26.2%) examinations with clinically important differences. The rate of clinically important discrepant readings was even higher in oncologic cases (36.3%; 331/911). When the final diagnosis was determined from pathology reports performed after internal interpretation, the second-opinion consultation was noted to be correct in 82.0% (334/407) of examinations with category 4 or 5 discrepancies. There was very good agreement (κ = 0.93) in scoring the discrepancies between second-opinion consultants. CONCLUSION: The subspecialty second-opinion consultation was more accurate than outside reports in 82.0% of examinations when pathologic confirmation was made. A moderate rate (26.2%) of discrepant interpretations was noted between outside and inside MSK imaging examinations, especially in tumor cases (36.3%). Most discrepancies were in interpreting rather than detecting abnormalities.