François Le Loarer

Challenges of a tailored immunohistochemistry algorithm for uterine leiomyosarcoma: an integrated analysis of leiomyomas with bizarre nuclei and fumarate hydratase (FH) deficiency

AimsLeiomyomas (LM) are the most common uterine mesenchymal neoplasms and encompass a variety of histological subtypes. Bizarre nuclei are described in both leiomyomas with bizarre nuclei (LM‐BN) and fumarate hydratase‐deficient leiomyomas (FH‐LM), which raise diagnostic concerns regarding leiomyosarcoma (LMS). Recently, an immunohistochemical algorithm to support the diagnosis of LMS based on the genomic landscape of these neoplasms was proposed. This study aimed to evaluate the algorithm's accuracy in distinguishing LM‐BN and FH‐LM from LMS.Methods and ResultsWe collected 68 LM (29 LM‐BN, 30 FH‐LM, and 9 LM) and 9 LMS, along with clinicopathological and molecular data. An immunohistochemical panel comprising p53, Rb, PTEN, ATRX, DAXX, and MDM2 was applied. Nine cases were non‐interpretable due to fixation issues. The algorithm demonstrated 100% accuracy for LM without bizarre nuclei (9/9) and for nonmyxoid LMS (5/5). Notably, 28.6% (14/49) of LM‐BN and FH‐LM exhibited at least two abnormalities, leading to potential misclassification as LMS. However, their clinical course, morphology, and genomic profile supported a benign diagnosis. Frequent alterations included Rb (20/49; 40.8%) and p53 (19/49; 38.8%), particularly in bizarre cells, while no abnormal staining was observed for ATRX, DAXX, or MDM2.ConclusionThe proposed algorithm has limitations in differentiating LMS from LM‐BN and FH‐LM, misclassifying 28.6% of the latter. Accurate interpretation requires proper internal controls, particularly for markers whose loss of expression favours malignancy. Morphology remains central for diagnosis, although integration of molecular data may provide additional insights for a definitive classification in challenging cases.

Pan‐TRK immunohistochemistry in gynaecological mesenchymal tumours: diagnostic implications and pitfalls

AimsNTRK‐rearranged sarcomas of the female genital tract mainly occur in the uterus (more commonly cervix than corpus) and are characterized by a “fibrosarcoma‐like” morphology and NTRK gene rearrangements. These neoplasms may exhibit histological overlap with other entities and can present diagnostic difficulties without molecular confirmation. Pan‐TRK immunohistochemistry was developed to identify tumours harbouring NTRK rearrangements. The aim of this study was to characterize pan‐TRK immunohistochemical expression in a large cohort of gynaecological mesenchymal neoplasms and investigate the utility of pan‐TRK immunohistochemistry to distinguish NTRK‐rearranged sarcoma from its mimics.Methods and resultsA total of 473 gynaecological mesenchymal tumours (461 without known NTRK fusions and 12 NTRK‐rearranged sarcomas) were selected. Pan‐TRK immunohistochemistry (EPR17341, Abcam) was performed on whole tissue sections and tissue microarrays. Molecular interrogation of pan‐TRK positive tumours was performed by RNA sequencing or fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). Of the 12 NTRK‐rearranged sarcomas, 11 (92%) exhibited diffuse (≥70%) cytoplasmic pan‐TRK staining with moderate/marked intensity, while the other was negative. Eleven (2.4%) additional tumours also exhibited pan‐TRK immunohistochemical expression: three low‐grade endometrial stromal sarcomas, seven high‐grade endometrial stromal sarcomas, and an undifferentiated uterine sarcoma. Molecular confirmation of the absence of NTRK rearrangements was possible in nine of these tumours. Of these nine neoplasms, seven exhibited focal/multifocal (<70%) pan‐TRK cytoplasmic staining with weak/moderate intensity.ConclusionEven though pan‐TRK immunohistochemical expression is not entirely sensitive or specific for NTRK‐rearranged sarcomas, these neoplasms tend to exhibit diffuse staining of moderate/strong intensity, unlike its mimics. Pan‐TRK should be performed in monomorphic uterine (corpus and cervix) spindle cell neoplasms that are negative for smooth muscle markers and hormone receptors and positive for CD34 and/ or S100. Ultimately, the diagnosis requires molecular confirmation.