Yolk Sac Differentiation in Endometrial Carcinoma: Incidence and Clinicopathologic Features of Somatically Derived Yolk Sac Tumors Versus Carcinomas With Nonspecific Immunoexpression of Yolk Sac Markers.

Endometrial somatically derived yolk sac tumors are characterized by yolk sac morphology with AFP, SALL-4, and/or Glypican-3 immunoexpression. Yolk sac marker expression, however, is not limited to tumors with overt yolk sac histology. Three hundred consecutive endometrial malignancies were assessed for immunomarkers of yolk sac differentiation. Of these, 9% expressed ≥1 yolk sac marker, including 29% of high-grade tumors. Only 3 (1%) met morphologic criteria for yolk sac differentiation; these were originally diagnosed as serous, high-grade NOS, and dedifferentiated carcinoma. Two were MMR-intact and comprised exclusively of yolk sac elements, while the dedifferentiated case was MMR deficient and had a background low-grade endometrioid carcinoma; this case also showed BRG1 loss. All 3 were INI1 intact. Nonspecific yolk sac marker expression was seen in 14 carcinosarcomas, 4 endometrioid, 2 serous, 1 clear cell, 1 dedifferentiated, 1 mixed serous/clear cell, and 1 mesonephric-like carcinoma. INI1 was intact in all cases; one showed BRG1 loss. Twenty were MMR-intact, and 4 were MMR deficient. All MMR-deficient cases with yolk sac marker expression, both with and without true yolk sac morphology, had no evidence of residual disease on follow-up, whereas 82% of MMR-intact cases developed recurrent/metastatic disease. In summary, endometrial somatically derived yolk sac tumors were rare but under-recognized. While AFP immunostaining was specific for this diagnosis, Glypican-3 and SALL-4 expression was seen in a variety of other high-grade carcinomas. INI1 loss was not associated with yolk sac morphology or immunomarker expression in the endometrium, and BRG1 loss was rare. All patients with MMR-deficient carcinomas with yolk sac immunoexpression +/- morphology were disease-free on follow-up, whereas the majority of MMR-intact cancers showed aggressive disease.

How far is too far? Cancer prevention and clinical trial enrollment in geographically underserved patient populations.

Despite dedicated efforts to improve equitable access to cancer care in the United States, disparities in cancer outcomes persist, and geographically underserved patients remain at an increased risk of cancer with lower rates of survival. The critical evaluation of cancer prevention inequities and clinical trial access presents the opportunity to outline novel strategies to incrementally improve bookended access to gynecologic cancer care for geographically underserved patients. Cancer prevention strategies that can be addressed in the rural patient population mirror priorities in the Healthy People 2030 objectives and include increased identification of high risk individuals who may benefit from increased cancer screening and risk reduction, increasing the proportion of people who discuss interventions to prevent cancer, such as HPV vaccination, with their provider, and increasing the proportion of adults who complete evidence based cancer screening. Barriers to accrual to clinical trials for rural patients overlap significantly with the same barriers to obtaining health care in general. These barriers include: lack of facilities and specialized providers; lack of robust health infrastructure; inability to travel; and financial barriers. In this review, we will discuss current knowledge and opportunities to improve cancer prevention initiatives and clinical trial enrollment in geographically underserved populations with a focus on rurality.

Factors affecting adherence to a high-risk surveillance protocol among patients with Li-Fraumeni syndrome.

BACKGROUND: High-risk surveillance for patients with Li-Fraumeni syndrome (LFS) has shown a stage shift and improved overall survival, but is demanding. Our objective was to evaluate surveillance adherence in a population of patients with LFS presenting for high-risk care. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of surveillance adherence of adult patients with LFS at a single institution was performed. Adherence was defined by the duration from initial University of Virginia (UVA) LFS clinic visit to the time of first missed surveillance test. Two-sample t-tests and ANOVA tests were used to identify factors associated with duration of adherence. RESULTS: A total of 42 patients were evaluated in the UVA LFS clinic between 2017 and 2021. Of these, 21 patients met inclusion criteria. At the time of review, 6 patients (29%) were up to date with high-risk surveillance recommendations. The mean duration of adherence was 17 months. Female sex was found to be associated with longer duration of adherence (mean 21 mo vs. 3.5 mo for males, p = 0.02). A personal history or active diagnosis of cancer was also associated with increased adherence (p = 0.02). However, neither age (p = 0.89), geography (p = 0.84), or known family history of LFS (p = 0.08) were associated with duration of adherence. CONCLUSION: Female sex as well as a personal history of cancer were associated with longer duration of adherence to recommended high-risk surveillance among patients with LFS. Identification of barriers to surveillance will be essential moving forward to increase adherence and promote early detection of cancer, thereby reducing the morbidity and mortality of LFS.

Somatic Sequencing and Microsatellite Instability Results From Mismatch Repair-deficient Endometrial Carcinoma Patients Without Lynch Syndrome ("Lynch-like" tumors): Implications for Heritable Cancer Screening, Molecular Prognostication, and Immunotherapeutic Vulnerability.

Immunostaining of endometrial carcinomas for mismatch repair (MMR) protein loss is standard-of-care for Lynch syndrome screening, but also identifies MMR-deficient tumors without germline pathogenic variants. While the majority show MLH1 hypermethylation ( MLH1hm ), somatic MMR pathogenic variants are increasingly recognized drivers of immunohistochemistry-germline discordance. Because MMR abnormalities with both germline and somatic origins have prognostic significance and impart susceptibility to immune checkpoint inhibitors, it is important to understand how frequently tumors with MMR immunohistochemical loss and normal germline testing ("Lynch-like" tumors) have underlying somatic MMR pathogenic variants. Somatic tumor sequencing±microsatellite instability (MSI) testing was performed on 18 endometrial cancers with MMR immunohistochemical loss but negative MMR germline results and negative MLH1hm where relevant. Tumor sequencing and MSI testing were successful in 94%. Where successful, 80% were MSI-high and 94% had a molecular correlate for the initial immunohistochemical interpretation. The single case without an identified somatic pathogenic variant was MSI-low and initially showed loss of MSH6 by immunohistochemistry but with extremely limited internal control staining. On review, MSH6 immunohistochemistry was reclassified as equivocal, and repeat staining revealed improved control expression with intact MSH6. Following reclassification of this case, 100% tumors with MMR deficiency by immunohistochemistry had at least 1 confirmed somatic MMR pathogenic variant, and 86% were MSI-high. These results demonstrate that when correctly interpreted immunohistochemistry is a strong surrogate for somatic MMR pathogenic variants and support its use as the frontline MMR biomarker in endometrial cancer for heritable screening, molecular prognostic classification, and immunotherapeutic biomarker testing purposes.

Updates in gynecologic care for individuals with lynch syndrome.

Lynch syndrome is an autosomal dominant hereditary cancer syndrome caused by germline pathogenic variants (PVs) in DNA mismatch repair genes (MLH1, MSH2, PMS2, MSH6) or the EPCAM gene. It is estimated to affect 1 in 300 individuals and confers a lifetime risk of cancer of 10-90%, depending on the specific variant and type of cancer. Lynch syndrome is the most common cause of inherited colorectal cancer, but for women, endometrial cancer is more likely to be the sentinel cancer. There is also evidence that certain PVs causing Lynch syndrome confer an increased risk of ovarian cancer, while the risk of ovarian cancer in others is not well defined. Given this, it is essential for the practicing gynecologist and gynecologic oncologist to remain up to date on the latest techniques in identification and diagnosis of individuals with Lynch syndrome as well as evidence-based screening and risk reduction recommendations for those impacted. Furthermore, as the landscape of gynecologic cancer treatment shifts towards treatment based on molecular classification of tumors, knowledge of targeted therapies well-suited for mismatch repair deficient Lynch tumors will be crucial. The objective of this review is to highlight recent updates in the literature regarding identification and management of individuals with Lynch syndrome as it pertains to endometrial and ovarian cancers to allow gynecologic providers the opportunity to both prevent and identify Lynch-associated cancers earlier, thereby reducing the morbidity and mortality of the syndrome.

PD-L1 and MHC Class I Expression in High-grade Ovarian Cancers, Including Platinum-resistant Recurrences Treated With Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy.

Immune-modulating therapies targeting the programmed cell death-1/programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1) immunosuppressive system have been used successfully in many solid tumor types. There is evidence that biomarkers such as PD-L1 and major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class I help identify candidates for anti-programmed cell death-1/PD-L1 checkpoint inhibition, though the evidence is limited in ovarian malignancies. PD-L1 and MHC Class I immunostaining was performed on pretreatment whole tissue sections in 30 cases of high-grade ovarian carcinoma. The PD-L1 combined positive score was calculated (a score of ≥1 is considered positive). MHC class I status was categorized as an intact or subclonal loss. In patients who received immunotherapy, drug response was assessed using RECIST criteria. PD-L1 was positive in 26 of 30 cases (87%; combined positive score: 1 to 100). Seven of 30 patients showed subclonal loss of MHC class I (23%), and this occurred in both PD-L1 negative (3/4; 75%) and PD-L1 positive (4/26; 15%) cases. Only 1 of 17 patients who received immunotherapy in the setting of a platinum-resistant recurrence responded to the addition of immunotherapy, and all 17 died of disease. In the setting of recurrent disease, patients did not respond to immunotherapy regardless of PD-L1/MHC class I status, suggesting that these immunostains may not be effective predictive biomarkers in this setting. Subclonal loss of expression of MHC class I occurs in ovarian carcinoma, including in PD-L1 positive cases, suggesting that the 2 pathways of immune evasion may not be mutually exclusive and that it may be important to interrogate MHC class I status in PD-L1 positive tumors to identify additional immune evasion mechanisms in these tumors.

Endometrial Hyperplasia.

The objectives of this Clinical Expert Series on endometrial hyperplasia are to review the etiology and risk factors, histologic classification and subtypes, malignant progression risks, prevention options, and to outline both surgical and nonsurgical treatment options. Abnormal uterine and postmenopausal bleeding remain the hallmark of endometrial pathology, and up to 10-20% of postmenopausal bleeding will be either hyperplasia or cancer; thus, immediate evaluation of any abnormal bleeding with either tissue procurement for pathology or imaging should be undertaken. Although anyone with a uterus may develop atypical hyperplasia, also known as endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia (EIN), genetic predispositions (eg, Lynch syndrome), obesity, chronic anovulation, and polycystic ovarian syndrome all markedly increase these risks, whereas use of oral contraceptive pills or progesterone-containing intrauterine devices will decrease the risk. An EIN diagnosis carries a high risk of concomitant endometrial cancer or eventual progression to cancer in the absence of treatment. The definitive and curative treatment for EIN remains hysterectomy; however, the obesity epidemic, the potential desire for fertility-sparing treatments, the recognition of varying rates of malignant transformation, medical comorbidities, and an aging population all may factor into decisions to employ nonsurgical treatment modalities.

Mesonephric-like Endometrial Carcinoma: Results From Immunohistochemical Screening of 300 Endometrial Carcinomas and Carcinosarcomas for This Often Overlooked and Potentially Aggressive Entity.

Mesonephric-like endometrial carcinoma is a rare but frequently misclassified and aggressive malignancy. KRAS mutations, limited estrogen receptor (ER) expression, and TTF-1, GATA3, and luminal CD10 expression are described in these tumors, but an immunohistochemistry-based screening approach has not been studied. We assessed 300 endometrial carcinomas/carcinosarcomas to ascertain the specificity of TTF-1/GATA3/luminal CD10 expression with or without ER staining for this diagnosis. Next-generation sequencing and morphologic review were performed on screen-positive cases. In all, 3% (9/300) were TTF-1+; 2 coexpressed GATA3. No cases expressed luminal CD10 or GATA3 in isolation. Two TTF-1+/ER- cases, one of which was also GATA3+, were reclassified as mesonephric-like based on morphology and molecular results (KRAS mutations without mismatch repair deficiency, TP53 mutations, or PTEN mutations): these represented 0.7% of all cases (2/300). The reclassified cases were originally diagnosed as grade 1 and 2 endometrioid carcinoma, and the latter had pulmonary metastases and pelvic recurrences. Six TTF-1+ cases retained their original serous (3) and endometrioid (3) diagnoses; 1 was reclassified as dedifferentiated. All had negative or low ER. KRAS mutations were identified in 4 TTF-1+ non-mesonephric-like cases, including 1 serous and 1 grade 3 endometrioid with p53 abnormalities, 1 mismatch repair-deficient endometrioid with a complex molecular profile, and 1 endometrioid with mucinous differentiation. These findings suggest that TTF-1 and ER are good first-line screens for mesonephric-like carcinoma, but caution that a TTF-1+/ER- immunoprofile is not specific, even in the setting of KRAS mutations. A final diagnosis of mesonephric-like carcinoma requires integration of morphologic and immunohistochemical features, with molecular support when relevant.

Targeting immune checkpoints in gynecologic cancer: updates & perspectives for pathologists.

Checkpoint inhibitor-based immunotherapy is increasingly used in the treatment of gynecologic cancers, and most often targets the PD-1/PD-L1 axis. Pathologists should be familiar with the biomarkers required to determine candidacy for these treatments based on existing FDA approvals, including mismatch repair protein immunohistochemistry, microsatellite instability testing, tumor mutation burden testing, and PD-L1 immunohistochemistry. This review summarizes the rationale behind these treatments and their associated biomarkers and delivers guidance on how to utilize and readout these tests. It also introduces additional biomarkers which may provide information regarding immunotherapeutic vulnerability in the future such as neoantigen load; POLE mutation status; and immunohistochemical expression of immunosuppressive checkpoints like LAG-3, TIM-3, TIGIT, and VISTA; immune-activating checkpoints such as CD27, CD40, CD134, and CD137; enzymes such as IDO-1 and adenosine-related compounds; and MHC class I.

MLH1/PMS2-deficient Endometrial Carcinomas in a Universally Screened Population: MLH1 Hypermethylation and Germline Mutation Status.

MLH1/PMS2 loss due to epigenetic hypermethylation of the MLH1 promoter is the most common cause of mismatch repair deficiency in endometrial carcinoma, and typically provides reassurance against an associated germline mutation. To further characterize the genetic features of MLH1/PMS2-deficient endometrial cancers, the departmental database was searched for cases with dual MLH1/PMS2 loss and retained MSH2/6 expression which underwent MLH1 hypermethylation testing. Genetic testing results were obtained when available. One hundred seventeen endometrial cancers met inclusion criteria: 100 (85%) were MLH1-hypermethylated, 3 (3%) were low-level/borderline, 7 (6%) were nonmethylated, and 7 (6%) were insufficient for testing. Sixteen cases (12 MLH1-hypermethylated, 3 nonmethylated, and 1 insufficient for testing) underwent germline testing, 6 of which (37.5%) demonstrated germline variants of unknown significance (VUS) (MSH6, PMS2, POLD1, BRIP1, RAD51D, CHEK2) but no known deleterious mutations. Notably, however, the patients harboring the MSH6 and PMS2 germline VUS had clinical features concerning for Lynch syndrome. One nonmethylated, germline-normal case underwent somatic tumor testing, and demonstrated a somatic MLH1 mutation. In summary, MLH1-hypermethylation accounts for the vast majority of MLH1/PMS2-deficient cancers in a universally screened population, although MLH1 somatic and germline mutations can occur. Occasionally, patients with MLH1-hypermethlated tumors also bear germline VUS in other mismatch repair genes as well as genes implicated in other hereditary cancer syndromes, but their clinical relevance is unclear. Family and personal cancer histories must always be evaluated to determine the need for germline testing in women with loss of MLH1/PMS2, even in the setting of hypermethylation.

Para-Aortic Nodal Radiation in the Definitive Management of Node-Positive Cervical Cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the safety and outcomes of elective para-aortic (PA) nodal irradiation utilizing modern treatment techniques for patients with node positive cervical cancer. METHODS: Patients with pelvic lymph node positive cervical cancer who received radiation were included. All patients received radiation therapy (RT) to either a traditional pelvic field or an extended field to electively cover the PA nodes. Factors associated with survival were identified using a Cox proportional hazards model, and toxicities between groups were compared with a chi-square test. RESULTS: 96 patients were identified with a mean follow up of 40 months. The incidence of acute grade ≥ 2 toxicity was 31% in the elective PA nodal RT group and 15% in the pelvic field group (Chi-square p = 0.067. There was no significant difference in rates of grade ≥ 3 acute or late toxicities between the two groups (p>0.05). The KM estimated 5-year OS was not statistically different for those receiving elective PA nodal irradiation compared to a pelvic only field, 54% vs. 73% respectively (log-rank p = 0.11). CONCLUSIONS: Elective PA nodal RT can safely be delivered utilizing modern planning techniques without a significant increase in severe (grade ≥ 3) acute or late toxicities, at the cost of a possible small increase in non-severe (grade 2) acute toxicities. In this series there was no survival benefit observed with the receipt of elective PA nodal RT, however, this benefit may have been obscured by the higher risk features of this population. While prospective randomized trials utilizing a risk adapted approach to elective PA nodal coverage are the only way to fully evaluate the benefit of elective PA nodal coverage, these trials are unlikely to be performed and instead we must rely on interpretation of results of risk adapted approaches like those used in ongoing clinical trials and retrospective data.

A Surgical Window Trial Evaluating Medroxyprogesterone Acetate with or without Entinostat in Patients with Endometrial Cancer and Validation of Biomarkers of Cellular Response.

PURPOSE: This surgical window of opportunity (window) study assessed the short-term effect of medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) alone versus MPA plus the histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitor entinostat on regulation of progesterone receptor (PR) in women with newly diagnosed endometrioid endometrial adenocarcinoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This multisite, randomized, open-label surgical window study treated women intramuscularly on day 1 with 400 mg MPA. Entinostat given 5 mg by mouth on days 1, 8, and 15 was randomly assigned with equal probability. Surgery followed on days 21-24. Pretreatment and posttreatment tissue was assessed for PR H-scores, Ki-67 levels, and histologic response. RESULTS: Fifty patients were accrued in 4 months; 22 and 20 participants had PR evaluable pretreatment and posttreatment slides in the MPA and MPA/entinostat arms, respectively. Median posttreatment PR H-scores were significantly lower than pretreatment H-scores in both arms but did not differ significantly (MPA: 247 vs. 27, MPA/entinostat 260 vs. 23, respectively, P = 0.87). Decreased Ki-67 was shown in 90% treated with MPA/entinostat compared with 68% treated with MPA alone (P = 0.13). Median PR H-score decreases were larger when Ki-67 was decreased (208) versus not decreased (45). The decrease in PR pretreatment versus posttreatment was associated with loss of Ki-67 nuclear staining, consistent with reduced cellular proliferation (P < 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: This surgical window trial rapidly accrued in a multisite setting and evaluated PR as its primary endpoint and Ki-67 as secondary endpoint. Despite no immediate effect of entinostat on PR in this short-term study, lessons learned can inform future window and treatment trials.

Clinical significance of homologous recombination deficiency score testing in endometrial Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) score is related to chemotherapy response in some cancers, but its role in endometrial cancer in not known. We determined frequency and clinical significance of alterations in the HR pathway in endometrial cancer. METHODS: 253 endometrioid endometrial adenocarcinoma (EEA) samples from two independent cohorts (discovery and replication) were tested for HRD score using the Myriad HRD assay, microsatellite instability (MSI) and tumor mutation burden (TMB) using a next generation sequencing assay. HRD scores were also generated on endometrial cancer cell lines and in vivo response to olaparib was assessed. RESULTS: ROC curves were employed to determine optimal cutoffs of HRD in relation to survival impact in endometrial cancer and a cutoff of HRD ≥ 4 was suggested for DFS using the discovery cohort. Patients from two independent cohorts with HRD score ≥ 4 trended toward worse survival as compared to those with HRD score < 4. Both cohorts were further separated into four groups according to molecular subtypes (TMB positive; MSI positive; HRD positive; all others). When grouped by molecular subtype, there was a significant difference between groups using an HRD ≥4 cutoff in the initial (p = 0.0024) and replication (p = 0.042) cohorts. The Hec1a model (HRD score = 19) was highly sensitive to olaparib in in vitro and in vivo experiments. CONCLUSIONS: High HRD score was associated with worse DFS in our patient cohort. These findings suggest that HRD score may have clinical utility in patients with advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer.

MHC class I loss in endometrial carcinoma: a potential resistance mechanism to immune checkpoint inhibition.

Major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class I is a membrane-bound protein complex expressed on nucleated human cells. MHC class I presents intracellular protein fragments to cytotoxic T cells and triggers an activation cascade upon neoantigen detection by these cells. MHC class I loss by tumor cells decreases tumor neoantigen presentation to the immune system and therefore represents a possible mechanism of immunotherapeutic resistance even among cancers that otherwise appear to be good candidates for checkpoint inhibition, such as mismatch repair (MMR)-deficient and PD-L1-positive malignancies. We herein assess MHC class I expression in a range of endometrial carcinomas, including MMR-deficient and PD-L1-positive cancers. Immunohistochemical staining for combined MHC class I A-, B-, and C-heavy chains was performed on 76 cases of endometrial carcinoma and was classified as present, subclonally lost, or diffusely lost. Tumoral PD-L1 expression, PD-L1 combined positive score, and CD3-positive T lymphocytes were also quantified. Forty-two percent of tumors showed loss of MHC class I expression, either in a subclonal (26%) or diffuse (16%) pattern. This included 46% of MMR-deficient and 25% of PD-L1-positive cancers. These findings suggest that tumoral MHC class I status may be an important factor to consider when selecting endometrial cancer patients for checkpoint inhibition.

Evaluation of breast screening strategies in a high risk breast and ovarian cancer clinic.

Recent data suggest that BRCA mutation carriers younger than 40 may not benefit from mammography in addition to MRI. Our objective was to evaluate screening modalities utilized in a high-risk population. Clinicopathologic data were abstracted for patients followed in a high risk clinic from 2007 to 2017. Descriptive statistics were calculated and associations between categorical variables were evaluated using chi-square tests. 631 women comprised the study population; 496 patients had no known mutation (79%), 128 (20%) had a BRCA mutation, and 7 patients had other deleterious mutations. BRCA mutation carriers were more likely to have cancers diagnosed after mammogram callbacks (p = 0.0046) and biopsies (p = 0.0026) compared to non-BRCA mutation carriers. BRCA mutation carriers were also more likely to have cancers diagnosed after biopsies following screening MRI (p = 0.045). 13 BRCA patients were diagnosed with cancer (average age 51). Of the cancers diagnosed after abnormal MRI, 3 were DCIS; all 3 patients had a normal mammogram 4-6 months prior. In those found after abnormal mammogram (n = 6), follow up MRI was performed in 4 cases; all demonstrated the lesion. Three patients were diagnosed younger than 40, 1 on mammogram and 2 on MRI. The patient diagnosed on mammogram had no prior MRI and the lesion was seen on follow-up MRI. Interval screening MRI identified DCIS in BRCA patients with a previous normal mammogram and cancers diagnosed on mammogram were all identified on follow-up MRI. These findings support further evaluation of MRI alone until age 40 in BRCA mutation carriers.

LAG-3 and GAL-3 in Endometrial Carcinoma: Emerging Candidates for Immunotherapy.

LAG-3 is an immunosuppressive checkpoint molecule expressed on T cells. One of its ligands, GAL-3, can promote the progression of malignancy and has been identified on tumor cells. Both LAG-3 and GAL-3 are the targets of emerging immunotherapies, but have not been well-studied in endometrial carcinomas. LAG-3, CD3, and GAL-3 immunohistochemistry was performed on 75 endometrial cancers (25 nonmethylated mismatch repair-deficient, 25 MLH1-hypermethylated mismatch repair-deficient, and 25 mismatch repair-intact). LAG-3 and CD3 lymphocytes were averaged per high-power field. Tumoral GAL-3 expression was semiquantitatively scored. Tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte expression of LAG-3 and CD3 were positively correlated (Spearman ρ=0.521, P<0.001) and greater in mismatch repair-deficient compared with mismatch repair-intact tumors (LAG-3: P<0.001; CD3: P<0.001). The majority (64%) of endometrial carcinomas demonstrated ≥1% tumoral GAL-3 expression, with higher rates in mismatch repair-deficient versus intact tumors at the ≥1% (80% vs. 32%, P<0.001) and the ≥5% thresholds (52% vs. 16%, P=0.003). At the ≥5% threshold, nonmethylated mismatch repair-deficient cancers were more likely than intact tumors carcinomas to express GAL-3 (60% vs. 4/25 16%, P=0.003). LAG-3 lymphocytes were positively correlated with GAL-3 expression in nonmethylated mismatch repair-deficient endometrial carcinomas only (Spearman ρ=0.461, P=0.020). LAG-3 tumor-associated lymphocytes and GAL-3 neoplastic cells are common in endometrial carcinomas, particularly in nonmethylated mismatch repair-deficient cancers. This supports a role for immunotherapies targeting LAG-3 and/or GAL-3 in a subset of endometrial carcinomas, potentially in concert with other checkpoint inhibitors.

Genetic counseling referral for ovarian cancer patients: a call to action.

The hereditary contribution to ovarian cancer has been increasingly recognized over the past decade, with a 2014 Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO) recommendation for all women with epithelial ovarian cancer to be considered for genetic testing. The objective of the study was to determine if disparities exist in genetic referrals and characterize referral patterns over time. A retrospective cohort study included all women diagnosed with invasive epithelial ovarian cancer at the University of Virginia from 2004 to 2015. Clinicopathologic data were abstracted from the electronic medical record and analyzed for association with genetic referral and testing. We identified 696 cases, with a median age of 62 years and a median follow up of 25.2 months (range 1-115). Thirty-four percent were referred for genetic counseling with an 80% genetic testing rate in those women. Referrals increased from a rate of 8% in 2004 to 68% in 2015. On multivariable analysis, papillary serous histology (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.0-2.6), stage III disease (OR 3.4, 95% CI 1.6-7.5), ovarian cancer family history (OR 2.6, 95% CI 1.5-4.6), breast cancer family history (OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.1-2.5), and diagnosis after 2014 (OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.3-4.1) remained significantly associated with genetics referral. Older age and living > 100 miles away were associated with decreased referral (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.95-0.99 per year and OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.28-0.86). As only 68% of women with epithelial ovarian cancer were referred in 2015 innovative strategies such as Medicare coverage for counseling are still needed to universalize testing.

TIM-3 in endometrial carcinomas: an immunotherapeutic target expressed by mismatch repair-deficient and intact cancers.

The checkpoint molecule TIM-3 is a target for emerging immunotherapies and has been identified on a variety of malignancies. Mismatch repair-deficient endometrial carcinomas have demonstrated durable responses to other checkpoint inhibitors due to high neoantigen loads and robust tumor-associated immune responses. However, little is known about TIM-3 expression in this tumor type. Tumor-associated immune and tumoral expression of TIM-3 were evaluated by immunohistochemistry on 75 endometrial carcinomas [25 MLH1 promoter hypermethylated (MLH1-hypermethylated), 25 non-hypermethylated mismatch repair-deficient, and 25 mismatch repair-intact]. All cases showed at least focal immune staining, but moderate and robust immune cell expression were more often observed in mismatch repair-deficient vs intact cases [66 vs 12%, P = 0.00002]. While the majority (77%) of endometrial cancers showed ≥1% tumoral TIM-3 expression, the MLH1-hypermethylated subset was more likely to demonstrate >5% tumoral staining when compared to both mismatch repair-intact and non-methylated mismatch repair-deficient cancers [64 vs. 28% and 32%, respectively; P = 0.02 and P = 0.05]. Within the non-methylated mismatch repair-deficient subset, high-level expression was most often associated with MSH6 loss. Across mismatch repair subgroups, tumoral TIM-3 expression was more common among intermediate and high-grade vs. low-grade tumors using both the 1% (P = 0.02) and 5% expression cut-offs (P = 0.02). In conclusion, tumoral TIM-3 expression is common in both mismatch repair-intact and deficient endometrial cancers, with particularly high levels of expression identified in the setting of MLH1-hypermethylation, MSH6 loss, and intermediate to high histologic grade. Although focal immune cell expression was seen in all tumors, robust expression was significantly more common in the context of mismatch repair deficiency. These data support a potential role for checkpoint inhibitors targeting TIM-3 in a subset of endometrial cancers, including some mismatch repair-intact tumors which are not currently considered immunotherapy candidates.

Evaluation of screening and risk-reducing surgery for women followed in a high-risk breast/ovarian cancer clinic: it is all about the tubes in BRCA mutation carriers.

The objectives of this study were to determine both surgical and subsequent cancer outcomes for high-risk women from the University of Virginia's High-Risk Breast/Ovarian Cancer clinic undergoing ovarian cancer risk-reducing surgery. Retrospective review identified high risk women who had ovarian risk reducing surgery over the past decade and surgical outcomes, pathology, pre-operative screening results, and pre-/post-operative cancer diagnoses were evaluated. One hundred and eighty-three high-risk women had risk reducing surgery at a mean age of 50.1 years and with a mean BMI of 28.9 kg/m2 at the time of surgery. Most women (103; 56.3%) had a strong family history of cancer concerning for a hereditary syndrome without an identified mutation, 35.5% of women carried a known deleterious mutation and 7.7% of women had a personal history of breast or ovarian cancer. The most common procedure was a risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy with or without hysterectomy (RRBSO, 89.1%). All women underwent the Sectioning and Extensively Examining the Fimbriated End (SEE-FIM) pathology protocol which found two (1.1%) invasive ovarian cancers (one ovarian/tubal carcinosarcoma, one granulosa cell ovarian cancer), three (1.6%) serous tubal intraepithelial carcinomas (STIC), and one (1.1%) invasive fallopian tube cancer. Subsequent cancer diagnoses included one (0.5%) primary peritoneal cancer, four (2.2%) DCIS, and seven (3.8%) invasive breast cancers. Ultimately, among all high-risk women undergoing RR surgery, about 3.3% were diagnosed with a STIC or an ovarian cancer none of which were identified on screening. All STIC and tubal cancers were diagnosed in women with BRCA mutations (6.6% rate for this group).

Cases and evidence for panel testing in cancer genetics: Is site-specific testing dead?

Historically in cancer genetic counseling, when a pathogenic variant is found which explains the cancers in the family, at risk family members are offered site-specific testing to identify whether or not they have the previously identified pathogenic variant. Factors such as turnaround times, cost, and insurance coverage all made site-specific testing the most appropriate testing option; however, as turnaround times and costs have substantially dropped and the recognition of double heterozygous families and families with nontraditional presentations has increased, the utility of site-specific testing should be questioned. We present four cases where ordering site-specific testing would have missed a clinically relevant pathogenic variant which raises the question of whether or not site-specific testing should be regularly used in cancer genetic testing.