Howitt, Brooke E.

AbstractOur knowledge regarding the role of genes encoding the chromatin remodeling switch/sucrose non‐fermenting (SWI/SNF) complex in the initiation and progression of gynecologic malignancies continues to evolve. This review focuses on gynecologic tumors in which the sole or primary genetic alteration is in SMARCA4 or SMARCB1, two members of the SWI/SNF chromatin remodeling complex. In this review, we present a brief overview of the classical example of such tumors, ovarian small cell carcinoma of hypercalcemic type, and then a detailed review and update of SMARCB1‐deficient and SMARCA4‐deficient tumors of the uterus and vulva.

High-grade neuroendocrine carcinomas (NEC) of the endometrium are rare and account for <1% of all endometrial carcinomas. Both small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (SCNEC) and large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (LCNEC) morphologies have been reported. Little is known regarding the molecular features of endometrial NEC including how they compare to pulmonary NEC (the most common site for these neoplasms) and the more common endometrial carcinoma histotypes. In this study, we investigated the molecular alterations in a series of endometrial NEC using a targeted next generation sequencing panel (Oncopanel). Fourteen NEC were sequenced; pure NEC (n=4) and mixed (n=10) with endometrioid adenocarcinoma (n=9) or carcinosarcoma (n=1). The NEC components of mixed tumors comprised LCNEC (n=6) and SCNEC (n=4). The 4 pure NEC comprised LCNEC (n=2) and SCNEC (n=2). Molecular analysis classified tumors into the 4 The Cancer Genome Atlas groups: (1) POLE-mutated/ultramutated (1/14; 7%), (2) microsatellite instability/hypermutated (6/14; 43%), (3) TP53 mutated/copy number high (2/14; 14%), or (4) no specific molecular profile (5/14; 36%). Overall, 50% of cases were ultramutated or hypermutated. In 8 cases of mixed carcinomas, the different histologic components were macrodissected and separately sequenced; molecular alterations were nearly identical among the 2 components, with the non-NEC component harboring slightly increased tumor mutational burden. Only 2 carcinomas (both with pure SCNEC morphology) had a molecular profile that would be expected in typical pulmonary SCNEC (RB1 deletion and TP53 mutations). Our findings, similar to data from NECs of other anatomic sites, suggest that the molecular context may be important when selecting therapies for women with endometrial NEC. Immune checkpoint inhibition may be a reasonable approach to treatment of microsatellite instability-NEC and we thus recommend that all endometrial NEC be tested for mismatch repair abnormalities, either molecularly or by mismatch repair protein immunohistochemistry.

Accurate risk stratification of smooth muscle tumors (SMTs) is essential for appropriate patient management. Yet, the rarity of SMTs of the vagina and vulva makes development of a prognostically meaningful classification system challenging. While 2 classification methods for vulvar SMTs and 1 for vaginal SMTs have been proposed, it is our experience that many pathologists tend to apply criteria for uterine SMTs when evaluating vulvovaginal tumors. We retrospectively reviewed a large cohort of vulvovaginal SMTs with clinical follow-up and evaluated which method most accurately classified tumors according to patient outcome. A total of 71 tumors, 53 vaginal (75%) and 18 vulvar (25%), from 71 patients were identified. All tumors were centrally examined for degree of cytologic atypia, morphology (spindled, epithelioid, myxoid), mitotic index per 10 high power fields, atypical mitotic figures, tumor cell necrosis, ischemic necrosis, tumor interface (circumscribed or infiltrative) and margin status. Clinical features were recorded for each patient. Follow-up was available for 63 patients (89%), and ranged from 1 to 234 months (median: 64 mo). While site-specific and uterine criteria showed equally excellent sensitivity in classifying smooth muscle neoplasms as leiomyosarcoma according to patient outcome, uterine criteria showed improved specificity relatively to site-specific methods in classifying tumors as nonsarcoma according to patient outcome. We recommend that uterine SMT criteria and nomenclature be adopted for evaluation and classification of vulvovaginal SMTs.