Reuter, Victor E.

AimsCompared to lymphovascular invasion (LVI), hilar soft tissue invasion (HSTI) is a relatively novel pT2 staging parameter in testicular germ cell tumours (GCT), associated with metastasis at the time of diagnosis and a risk factor for disease relapse. Given diagnostic variability in how pathologists interpret HSTI, herein we explore interobserver reproducibility among genitourinary (GU) pathologists.MethodsTwenty haematoxylin and eosin‐stained digitized slides from testicular GCTs were distributed to 30 GU pathologists to classify each as HSTI or not HSTI based on their respective clinical practices; slides with concomitant LVI were excluded. Slides were then evaluated for the following morphologic features: tumour invasion beyond prominent hilar vessels, tumour invasion beyond the rete, tumour invasion beyond the level parallel to hilar adipose tissue and tumour within (directly touching) hilar adipose tissue. Interobserver reproducibility was assessed, and the morphological features were correlated with HSTI. Relationships between pathologists' interpretations, morphological features and HSTI were evaluated using hierarchical clustering.ResultsAlthough the diagnosis of HSTI was relatively uniform with a majority agreement (>67%) reached in 17/20 slides, overall interobserver reproducibility was only moderate (kappa = 0.50). Morphological features such as invasion beyond the level parallel to hilar adipose tissue and invasion into fat were more sensitive and specific for HSTI, while features such as invasion beyond hilar vessels and invasion beyond rete were less useful.ConclusionsThese findings suggest that more specific defined diagnostic criteria for testicular GCT HSTI are needed.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors are an important therapeutic option for urothelial carcinoma, but durable responses are achieved in a minority of patients. Identifying pre-treatment biomarkers that may predict response to these therapies or who exhibit intrinsic resistance, is of paramount importance. OBJECTIVE: To explore the prevalence of PD-L1 copy number alteration in urothelial carcinoma and correlate with response to immune checkpoint inhibitors. METHODS: We analyzed a cohort of 1050 carcinomas of the bladder and upper urinary tract that underwent targeted next generation sequencing, prospectively. We assessed PD-L1 protein expression, copy number status (next generation sequencing/FISH), and detailed treatment response. RESULTS: We identified 9 tumors with PD-L1 amplification and 9 tumors with PD-L1 deletion. PD-L1 protein expression was the highest in PD-L1 amplified tumors. Of the 9 patients whose tumors harbored PD-L1 amplification, 6 received immunotherapy with 4 deriving clinical benefit, and 2 achieving durable response. Of the 9 patients whose tumors had PD-L1 copy number losses, 4 received immunotherapy with 3 experiencing disease progression. CONCLUSIONS: PD-L1 copy number alterations may serve as potential biomarkers of response to immunotherapy in urothelial carcinoma patients, if validated in larger cohorts.

The Genitourinary Pathology Society (GUPS) undertook a critical review of the recent advances in bladder neoplasia with a focus on issues relevant to the practicing surgical pathologist for the understanding and effective reporting of bladder cancer, emphasizing particularly on the newly accumulated evidence post-2016 World Health Organization (WHO) classification. The work is presented in 2 manuscripts. Here, in the first, we revisit the nomenclature and classification system used for grading flat and papillary urothelial lesions centering on clinical relevance, and on dilemmas related to application in routine reporting. As patients of noninvasive bladder cancer frequently undergo cystoscopy and biopsy in their typically prolonged clinical course and for surveillance of disease, we discuss morphologies presented in these scenarios which may not have readily applicable diagnostic terms in the WHO classification. The topic of inverted patterns in urothelial neoplasia, particularly when prominent or exclusive, and beyond inverted papilloma has not been addressed formally in the WHO classification. Herein we provide a through review and suggest guidelines for when and how to report such lesions. In promulgating these GUPS recommendations, we aim to provide clarity on the clinical application of these not so uncommon diagnostically challenging situations encountered in routine practice, while also importantly advocating consistent terminology which would inform future work.

Transcription factor E3-rearranged renal cell carcinoma (TFE3-RCC) has heterogenous morphologic and immunohistochemical (IHC) features. 131 pathologists with genitourinary expertise were invited in an online survey containing 23 questions assessing their experience on TFE3-RCC diagnostic work-up. Fifty (38%) participants completed the survey. 46 of 50 participants reported multiple patterns, most commonly papillary pattern (almost always 9/46, 19.5%; frequently 29/46, 63%). Large epithelioid cells with abundant cytoplasm were the most encountered cytologic feature, with either clear (almost always 10/50, 20%; frequently 34/50, 68%) or eosinophilic (almost always 4/49, 8%; frequently 28/49, 57%) cytology. Strong (3+) or diffuse (>75% of tumour cells) nuclear TFE3 IHC expression was considered diagnostic by 13/46 (28%) and 12/47 (26%) participants, respectively. Main TFE3 IHC issues were the low specificity (16/42, 38%), unreliable staining performance (15/42, 36%) and background staining (12/42, 29%). Most preferred IHC assays other than TFE3, cathepsin K and pancytokeratin were melan A (44/50, 88%), HMB45 (43/50, 86%), carbonic anhydrase IX (41/50, 82%) and CK7 (32/50, 64%). Cut-off for positive TFE3 fluorescent in situ hybridisation (FISH) was preferably 10% (9/50, 18%), although significant variation in cut-off values was present. 23/48 (48%) participants required TFE3 FISH testing to confirm TFE3-RCC regardless of the histomorphologic and IHC assessment. 28/50 (56%) participants would request additional molecular studies other than FISH assay in selected cases, whereas 3/50 participants use additional molecular cases in all cases when TFE3-RCC is in the differential. Optimal diagnostic approach on TFE3-RCC is impacted by IHC and/or FISH assay preferences as well as their conflicting interpretation methods.

Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate (IDC-P) has been recently recognized by the World Health Organization classification of prostatic tumors as a distinct entity, most often occurring concurrently with invasive prostatic adenocarcinoma (PCa). Whether documented admixed with PCa or in its rare pure form, numerous studies associate this entity with clinical aggressiveness. Despite increasing clinical experience and requirement of IDC-P documentation in protocols for synoptic reporting, the specifics of its potential contribution to assessment of grade group (GG) and cancer quantitation of PCa in both needle biopsies (NBx) and radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens remain unclear. Moreover, there are no standard guidelines for incorporating basal cell marker immunohistochemistry (IHC) in the diagnosis of IDC-P, either alone or as part of a cocktail with AMACR/racemase. An online survey containing 26 questions regarding diagnosis, reporting practices, and IHC resource utilization, focusing on IDC-P, was undertaken by 42 genitourinary subspecialists from 9 countries. The degree of agreement or disagreement regarding approaches to individual questions was classified as significant majority (>75%), majority (51% to 75%), minority (26% to 50%) and significant minority (≤25%). IDC-P with or without invasive cancer is considered a contraindication for active surveillance by the significant majority (95%) of respondents, although a majority (66%) also agreed that the clinical significance/behavior of IDC-P on NBx or RP with PCa required further study. The majority do not upgrade PCa based on comedonecrosis seen only in the intraductal component in NBx (62%) or RP (69%) specimens. Similarly, recognizable IDC-P with GG1 PCa was not a factor in upgrading in NBx (78%) or RP (71%) specimens. The majority (60%) of respondents include readily recognizable IDC-P in assessment of linear extent of PCa at NBx. A significant majority (78%) would use IHC to confirm or exclude intraductal carcinoma if other biopsies showed no PCa, while 60% would use it to confirm IDC-P with invasive PCa in NBx if it would change the overall GG assignment. Nearly half (48%, a minority) would use IHC to confirm IDC-P for accurate Gleason pattern 4 quantitation. A majority (57%) report the percentage of IDC-P when present, in RP specimens. When obvious Gleason pattern 4 or 5 PCa is present in RP or NBx, IHC is rarely to almost never used to confirm the presence of IDC-P by the significant majority (88% and 90%, respectively). Most genitourinary pathologists consider IDC-P to be an adverse prognostic feature independent of the PCa grade, although recommendations for standardization are needed to guide reporting of IDC-P vis a vis tumor quantitation and final GG assessment. The use of IHC varies widely and is performed for a multitude of indications, although it is used most frequently in scenarios where confirmation of IDC-P would impact the GG assigned. Further study and best practices recommendations are needed to provide guidance with regards to the most appropriate indications for IHC use in scenarios regarding IDC-P.

4563 Background: We previously reported no difference in favorable response rate (FRR) or PFS for TIP vs BEP. Here we present results of a pre-planned analysis of biomarkers of outcome. Methods: HCG and AFP were drawn on days 1 and 15 of each cycle and rates of decline classified as satisfactory [S] or unsatisfactory [US] by MSK (Motzer JCO 2007) and GETUG (Fizazi Lancet Oncol 2014) methods. IHC for ERCC1, RAD51, PARP1, HER-2, and p-AKT was performed on pre-treatment tumor samples. An H-score (0 – 300) was calculated for each stain (H = stain intensity [0 – 3] x % positive cells [0-100]). H-score and marker decline category were correlated with FRR (PR + CR) and PFS. Patients (pts) who received disease-stabilizing chemotherapy were excluded from marker analyses. Results: Of 91 pts, 80 did not receive disease-stabilizing treatment with 79 having sufficient marker values for analysis by the MSK method and 75 by GETUG. By MSK, 49 had S decline vs 30 US; by GETUG, 34 S vs 41 US. FRR and PFS were improved for pts with S vs US decline by both methods and remained significant by the MSK method when stratified by IGCCCG group (Table). IHC (n=77) quality was adequate in 71 to 73 pts (varied by stain) and was positive (H >0) for PARP in 68/73, ERCC1 in 54/71, RAD51 in 54/73, p-AKT in 5/72, and HER2 in 4/72. Only PARP1 was associated with outcome with worse PFS for the lowest expression tertile (H < 180; p=0.013). Conclusions: PARP1 expression and tumor marker decline rates, particularly by MSK method, were significantly associated with outcome to initial chemotherapy in int/poor risk GCT. Future trials incorporating marker decline into treatment allocation and validating the prognostic effect of PARP1 expression are warranted. Clinical trial information: NCT01873326. [Table: see text]

364 Background: Flavopiridol + FOLFOX showed activity in refractory GCT pts in a phase I trial (Rathkopf, Clin Cancer Res, 2009). This phase II study assessed the efficacy of this regimen in refractory GCT and the necessity of including 5-FU/LV. Methods: Previously treated pts with progressive GCT were eligible if they had received or were not candidates for high-dose chemotherapy (HDCT). Pts on Arm A received flavopiridol 70mg/m2 plus oxaliplatin 85mg/m2. Arm B (flavopiridol + FOLFOX) tested identical doses of flavopiridol and oxaliplatin plus 5-FU (400mg/m2 bolus, then 1800mg/m2 over 48 hours) and LV 400mg/m2. Treatment was every 2 weeks in 6-week cycles. The primary endpoint was response rate (RR) by RECIST. An identical Simon 2-stage design was used for each arm to differentiate between a RR ≥40% vs. ≤20%, with arm B opening only if arm A was ineffective. With ≥3 responses among the first 12 pts, another 13 pts would be enrolled with responses in ≥8/25 pts needed to show efficacy. Tumor biopsies pre-, during, and post-treatment were assessed by IHC for p53, p21, and cleaved caspase-3. Results: Of 36 pts (7 arm A, 29 arm B), 33 had nonseminoma. Primary site was testis in 27 and mediastinum in 7; 22 pts had received prior HDCT and 13 had LR (>2 years), including 2 on arm A and 11 on arm B. Arm A closed early after 0/7 pts responded (2 SD). Of 25 evaluable pts on arm B, 6 achieved a PR, 9 had SD, and 10 had PD. Notably, 5/10 evaluable LR pts on Arm B had a PR, including 1 pathologic CR, 1 PR-negative markers who received radiation (RT) to a residual bone metastasis, and 1 PR-positive markers who received RT to a residual nodal mass. These 3 pts remain disease-free ≥19 months (m) post-chemotherapy and ≥17m post-RT or surgery. Median PFS and OS were 2.3m and 7.3m for all pts and 3.2m and 11.2m for arm B pts. There was 1 treatment-related death due to sepsis. Conclusions: Although neither arm met the prespecified endpoint, flavopiridol plus FOLFOX (arm B) was particularly active in LR pts, with a 50% overall RR, including several durable responses. Further study of FOLFOX with or without flavopiridol is warranted in LR pts. Correlative data will be presented. Clinical trial information: NCT00957905.

513 Background: Chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (chRCC) is the third most common histologic subtype of kidney cancer. While most of these tumors have an indolent behavior, 7% of patients with chRCC develop metastases, with no currently available standard of care. The Cancer Genome Atlas characterized chRCC, highlighting pathognomonic single copy chromosomal losses of 1, 2, 6, 10, 13 and 17, as well as a minimal mutation burden distinguishing it from all other cancer types. However, only 15% of the analyzed patients had advanced disease. We analyzed metastatic chRCC to further characterize these tumors and elucidate mechanisms leading to aggressive disease using a variety of next generation and whole genome sequencing. Methods: Our cohort of metastatic chRCC consisted of 40 patients with available clinical and pathologic data. Whole genome sequencing (WGS) was performed on 6 patients (4 primary tumors and 2 metastases), 42 additional samples from 33 patients were analyzed using targeted next-generation sequencing (MSK-IMPACT). Notably, we were able to collect and analyze matched primary and metastatic tumors from 7 patients. As control cohort 27 non-metastatic chRCC tumors were sequenced with MSK-IMPACT. Copy number patterns were computed with OncoSNP seq and FACETS. Results: The most commonly mutated genes in the aggressive chRCC tumors were TP53 and PTEN (WGS: TP53 67 %, PTEN 33%; MSK-IMPACT: TP53 61%, PTEN 27%). No other genes were mutated frequently. Primary tumor samples of chRCC did show the typical pattern of chromosomal losses in 1, 2, 6, 10, 13 and 17. Interestingly, these canonical losses could not be detected in the metastases even when accounting for tumor purity. Conclusions: TP53 and PTEN mutations are highly enriched in both primary and metastatic tumors of aggressive chRCC compared to the non-aggressive tumors and likely play a critical role in disease progression. More intriguingly, the observation of differential copy numbers in matched primary and metastatic tumors suggest whole genome or whole chromosome events in these samples. We are currently employing different bioinformatic and cytogenetic platforms to validate our novel hypothesis of chromosomal events as driver for metastatic development in chRCC.