Molecular pathology of endocrine gland tumors: genetic alterations and clinicopathologic relevance.

Tumors of the endocrine glands are common. Knowledge of their molecular pathology has greatly advanced in the recent past. This review covers the main molecular alterations of tumors of the anterior pituitary, thyroid and parathyroid glands, adrenal cortex, and adrenal medulla and paraganglia. All endocrine gland tumors enjoy a robust correlation between genotype and phenotype. High-throughput molecular analysis demonstrates that endocrine gland tumors can be grouped into molecular groups that are relevant from both pathologic and clinical point of views. In this review, genetic alterations have been discussed and tabulated with respect to their molecular pathogenetic role and clinicopathologic implications, addressing the use of molecular biomarkers for the purpose of diagnosis and prognosis and predicting response to molecular therapy. Hereditary conditions that play a key role in determining predisposition to many types of endocrine tumors are also discussed.

Prognostic Impact of Pathologic Features in Molecular Subgroups of Endometrial Carcinoma.

The molecular characterization of endometrial carcinoma (EC) has recently been included in the ESGO/ESTRO/ESP guidelines. The study aims to evaluate the impact of integrated molecular and pathologic risk stratification in the clinical practice and the relevance of pathologic parameters in predicting prognosis in each EC molecular subgroup. ECs were classified using immunohistochemistry and next-generation sequencing into the four molecular classes: POLE mutant (POLE), mismatch repair deficient (MMRd), p53 mutant (p53abn), and no specific molecular profile (NSMP). According to the WHO algorithm, 219 ECs were subdivided into the following molecular subgroups: 7.8% POLE, 31% MMRd, 21% p53abn, 40.2% NSMP. Molecular classes as well as ESGO/ESTRO/ESP 2020 risk groups were statistically correlated with disease-free survival. Considering the impact of histopathologic features in each molecular class, stage was found to be the strongest prognostic factor in MMRd ECs, whereas in the p53abn subgroup, only lymph node status was associated with recurrent disease. Interestingly, in the NSMP tumor, several histopathologic features were correlated with recurrence: histotype, grade, stage, tumor necrosis, and substantial lymphovascular space invasion. Considering early-stage NSMP ECs, substantial lymphovascular space invasion was the only independent prognostic factor. Our study supports the prognostic importance of EC molecular classification and demonstrated the essential role of histopathologic assessment in patients' management.

Integrated clinicopathologic and molecular analysis of endometrial carcinoma: Prognostic impact of the new ESGO-ESTRO-ESP endometrial cancer risk classification and proposal of histopathologic algorithm for its implementation in clinical practice.

Introduction: The European Society of Gynecologic Oncology/European Society of Radiation Therapy and Oncology/European Society of Pathology (ESGO/ESTRO/ESP) committee recently proposed a new risk stratification system for endometrial carcinoma (EC) patients that incorporates clinicopathologic and molecular features. The aim of the study is to compare the new ESGO/ESTRO/ESP risk classification system with the previous 2016 recommendations, evaluating the impact of molecular classification and defining a new algorithm for selecting cases for molecular analysis to assign the appropriate risk class. Methods: The cohort included 211 consecutive EC patients. Immunohistochemistry and next-generation sequencing were used to assign molecular subgroups of EC: POLE mutant (POLE), mismatch repair deficient (MMRd), p53 mutant (p53abn), and no specific molecular profile (NSMP). Results: Immuno-molecular analysis was successful in all cases, identifying the four molecular subgroups: 7.6% POLE, 32.2% MMRd, 20.9% p53abn, and 39.3% NSMP. The recent 2020 guidelines showed a 32.7% risk group change compared with the previous 2016 classification system: the reassignment is due to POLE mutations, abnormal p53 expression, and a better definition of lymphovascular space invasion. The 2020 system assigns more patients to lower-risk groups (42.2%) than the 2016 recommendation (25.6%). Considering the 2020 risk classification system that includes the difference between "unknown molecular classification" and "known," the integration of molecular subgroups allowed 6.6% of patients to be recategorized into a different risk class. In addition, the use of the proposed algorithm based on histopathologic parameters would have resulted in a 62.6% reduction in molecular analysis, compared to applying molecular classification to all patients. Conclusion: Application of the new 2020 risk classification integrating clinicopathologic and molecular parameters provided more accurate identification of low-and high-risk patients, potentially allowing a more specific selection of patients for post-operative adjuvant therapy. The proposed histopathologic algorithm significantly decreases the number of tests needed and could be a promising tool for cost reduction without compromising prognostic stratification.