H&E and OCT4/CD34 for the assessment of lympho-vascular invasion in seminoma and embryonal carcinoma.

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.

SOX2 and PRAME in the "reprogramming" of seminoma cells.

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.