Molecular, morphological and survival analysis of 177 resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas (PDACs): Identification of prognostic subtypes

Anna Melissa Schlitter, Angela Segler, Katja Steiger, Christoph W Michalski, Carsten Jäger, Björn Konukiewitz, Nicole Pfarr, Volker Endris, Markus Bettstetter, Bo Kong, Ivonne Regel, Jörg Kleeff, Günter Klöppel, Irene Esposito, Anna Melissa Schlitter, Angela Segler, Katja Steiger, Christoph W Michalski, Carsten Jäger, Björn Konukiewitz, Nicole Pfarr, Volker Endris, Markus Bettstetter, Bo Kong, Ivonne Regel, Jörg Kleeff, Günter Klöppel, Irene Esposito

Abstract

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) has generally a poor prognosis, but recent data suggest that there are molecular subtypes differing in clinical outcome. This study examines the association between histopathologic heterogeneity, genetic profile, and survival. Tumor histology from 177 resected PDAC patients with follow-up data was subclassified according to predominant growth pattern, and four key genes were analyzed. PDACs were classified as conventional (51%), combined with a predominant component (41%), variants and special carcinomas (8%). Patients with combined PDACs and a dominant cribriform component survived longer than patients with conventional or other combined PDACs. Genetic alterations in at least two out of four genes were found in 95% of the patients (KRAS 93%, TP53 79%, CDKN2A/p16 75%, SMAD4 37%). Patients with less than four mutations survived significantly longer (p = 0.04) than those with alterations in all four genes. Patients with either wildtype KRAS or CDKN2A/p16 lived significantly longer than those with alterations in these genes (p = 0.018 and p = 0.006, respectively). Our data suggest that the number of altered genes, the mutational status of KRAS and certain morphological subtypes correlate with the outcome of patients with PDAC. Future pathology reporting of PDAC should therefore include the KRAS status and a detailed morphological description.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Figures

Figure 1. Spectrum of histologic patterns in…
Figure 1. Spectrum of histologic patterns in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas (PDACs).
(A) Conventional PDAC. (B–F) Combined PDACs with a dominant histological component: (B) Clear-cell component. (C) Cribriform component. (D) Gyriform component. (E) Micropapillary component. (F) Complex component. (G) Adenosquamous carcinoma. (H) Colloid carcinoma. (I) Papillary carcinoma.
Figure 2. Tubular adenocarcinoma of the pancreas.
Figure 2. Tubular adenocarcinoma of the pancreas.
(A) Low power view showing groups of well-differentiated infiltrating tubules surrounded by small cuffs of desmoplastic stroma. (B) Infiltrating well differentiated neoplastic glands closely imitating normal ducts.
Figure 3. KRAS mutation analysis (direct sequencing)…
Figure 3. KRAS mutation analysis (direct sequencing) of codon 12 of exon 2.
(A) Hotspot of exon 2 shows KRAS wildtype, (B) KRAS mutation (p.G12D, arrow), or (C) low-level mutation (p.G12C, arrow, faint red signal), as confirmed by next generation sequencing (NGS) (case #190).
Figure 4. TP53 analyses.
Figure 4. TP53 analyses.
(A,B) TP53 wildtype is associated with nuclear TP53 expression in up to 24% of neoplastic cells. (C,D) TP53 missense mutation (p.Y205C; exon 6) is associated with nuclear TP53 overexpression in ≥25% of neoplastic cells (mutation type 1). (E,F) TP53 intragenic deletion or nonsense, frameshift or splicesite mutations (mutation type 2; here represented by an insertion-frameshift mutation p.P153*fs28; exon 5) is associated with loss of nuclear TP53 expression in neoplastic cells.
Figure 5. Immunohistochemical analysis of CDKN2A/p16 and…
Figure 5. Immunohistochemical analysis of CDKN2A/p16 and SMAD4.
(A) Strong nuclear and cytoplasmatic staining of CDKN2A/p16 in neoplastic cells indicating the presence of an intact gene. (B) No labeling of CDKN2A/p16 in neoplastic cells indicating either a deletion, inactivating mutation, or promoter hypermethylation. (C) Nuclear SMAD4 immunolabeling of neoplastic cells indicating the presence of an intact protein. (D) Loss of SMAD4 expression in >90% of neoplastic cells indicating a deletion or inactivating mutation of the gene.
Figure 6. Kaplan-Meier survival curves in pancreatic…
Figure 6. Kaplan-Meier survival curves in pancreatic adenocarcinomas correlated with molecular status.
(A) Significant correlation of median patient survival with number of mutations. (B) Patients with KRAS wildtype have a significantly better overall survival than patients with mutated KRAS. (C) Patients with intact CDKNA2/p16 have a significantly better overall survival than patients with altered CDKNA2/p16.
Figure 7. Risk stratification after surgical resection…
Figure 7. Risk stratification after surgical resection of PDAC.
Proposed scheme to identify PDACs with low/intermediate and high biological aggressiveness based on morphological classification and molecular testing of key genes.

References

    1. Spath C. et al.. Strategies to improve the outcome in locally advanced pancreatic cancer. Minerva Chir 70, 97–106 (2015).
    1. Siegel R. L., Miller K. D. & Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2015. CA Cancer J Clin 65, 5–29, doi: 10.3322/caac.21254 (2015).
    1. Esposito I., Konukiewitz B., Schlitter A. M. & Kloppel G. Pathology of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: facts, challenges and future developments. World J Gastroenterol 20, 13833–13841, doi: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i38.13833 (2014).
    1. Esposito I., Segler A., Steiger K. & Kloppel G. Pathology, genetics and precursors of human and experimental pancreatic neoplasms: An update. Pancreatology, doi: 10.1016/j.pan.2015.08.007 (2015).
    1. Wood L. D. & Hruban R. H. Pathology and molecular genetics of pancreatic neoplasms. Cancer J 18, 492–501, doi: 10.1097/PPO.0b013e31827459b6 (2012).
    1. Witkiewicz A. K. et al.. Whole-exome sequencing of pancreatic cancer defines genetic diversity and therapeutic targets. Nat Commun 6, 6744, doi: 10.1038/ncomms7744 (2015).
    1. Waddell N. et al.. Whole genomes redefine the mutational landscape of pancreatic cancer. Nature 518, 495–501, doi: 10.1038/nature14169 (2015).
    1. Rozenblum E. et al.. Tumor-suppressive pathways in pancreatic carcinoma. Cancer Res 57, 1731–1734 (1997).
    1. Venter J. C. et al.. The sequence of the human genome. Science 291, 1304–1351, doi: 10.1126/science.1058040 (2001).
    1. Jones S. et al.. Core signaling pathways in human pancreatic cancers revealed by global genomic analyses. Science 321, 1801–1806, doi: 10.1126/science.1164368 (2008).
    1. Collisson E. A. et al.. Subtypes of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and their differing responses to therapy. Nat Med 17, 500–503, doi: 10.1038/nm.2344 (2011).
    1. Lee J. et al.. Impact of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) kinase mutations, EGFR gene amplifications, and KRAS mutations on survival of pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Cancer 109, 1561–1569, doi: 10.1002/cncr.22559 (2007).
    1. Ogura T. et al.. Prognostic value of K-ras mutation status and subtypes in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration specimens from patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer. J Gastroenterol 48, 640–646, doi: 10.1007/s00535-012-0664-2 (2013).
    1. Shin S. H. et al.. Genetic alterations of K-ras, p53, c-erbB-2, and DPC4 in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and their correlation with patient survival. Pancreas 42, 216–222, doi: 10.1097/MPA.0b013e31825b6ab0 (2013).
    1. Sinn B. V. et al.. KRAS mutations in codon 12 or 13 are associated with worse prognosis in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Pancreas 43, 578–583, doi: 10.1097/MPA.0000000000000077 (2014).
    1. Yachida S. et al.. Clinical significance of the genetic landscape of pancreatic cancer and implications for identification of potential long-term survivors. Clin Cancer Res 18, 6339–6347, doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-12-1215 (2012).
    1. Hruban R. H. et al.. In WHO Classification of Tumors of the Digestive System (eds F.T. Bosman, F. Carneiro, R.H. Hruban & N.D. Theise) 292–299 (IARC, 2010).
    1. Dal Molin M. et al.. Clinicopathological correlates of activating GNAS mutations in intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) of the pancreas. Ann Surg Oncol 20, 3802–3808, doi: 10.1245/s10434-013-3096-1 (2013).
    1. Oshima M. et al.. Immunohistochemically detected expression of 3 major genes (CDKN2A/p16, TP53, and SMAD4/DPC4) strongly predicts survival in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer. Ann Surg 258, 336–346, doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3182827a65 (2013).
    1. Calhoun E. S. et al.. BRAF and FBXW7 (CDC4, FBW7, AGO, SEL10) mutations in distinct subsets of pancreatic cancer: potential therapeutic targets. Am J Pathol 163, 1255–1260, doi: 10.1016/S0002-9440(10)63485-2 (2003).
    1. Goggins M. et al.. Pancreatic adenocarcinomas with DNA replication errors (RER+) are associated with wild-type K-ras and characteristic histopathology. Poor differentiation, a syncytial growth pattern, and pushing borders suggest RER+. Am J Pathol 152, 1501–1507 (1998).
    1. Wilentz R. E. et al.. Genetic, immunohistochemical, and clinical features of medullary carcinoma of the pancreas: A newly described and characterized entity. Am J Pathol 156, 1641–1651, doi: 10.1016/S0002-9440(10)65035-3 (2000).
    1. Wu J. et al.. Whole-exome sequencing of neoplastic cysts of the pancreas reveals recurrent mutations in components of ubiquitin-dependent pathways. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108, 21188–21193, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1118046108 (2011).
    1. Adsay N. V. et al.. Colloid (mucinous noncystic) carcinoma of the pancreas. Am J Surg Pathol 25, 26–42 (2001).
    1. Borazanci E. et al.. Adenosquamous carcinoma of the pancreas: Molecular characterization of 23 patients along with a literature review. World J Gastrointest Oncol 7, 132–140, doi: 10.4251/wjgo.v7.i9.132 (2015).
    1. Trikudanathan G. & Dasanu C. A. Adenosquamous carcinoma of the pancreas: a distinct clinicopathologic entity. South Med J 103, 903–910, doi: 10.1097/SMJ.0b013e3181ebadbd (2010).
    1. Kloppel G., Basturk O., Schlitter A. M., Konukiewitz B. & Esposito I. Intraductal neoplasms of the pancreas. Semin Diagn Pathol 31, 452–466, doi: 10.1053/j.semdp.2014.08.005 (2014).
    1. Kelly P. J. et al.. Cystic papillary pattern in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a heretofore undescribed morphologic pattern that mimics intraductal papillary mucinous carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 36, 696–701, doi: 10.1097/PAS.0b013e318249ce1c (2012).
    1. Rakha E. A., Pinder S. E., Shi S. J. & Tsuda H. In WHO Classiciation of Tumours of the Breast Vol. 4 (eds S.R. Lankhani et al..) (IARC, 2012).
    1. Rakha E. A. et al.. Tubular carcinoma of the breast: further evidence to support its excellent prognosis. J Clin Oncol 28, 99–104, doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.23.5051 (2010).
    1. Riener M. O. et al.. Microarray comparative genomic hybridization analysis of tubular breast carcinoma shows recurrent loss of the CDH13 locus on 16q. Hum Pathol 39, 1621–1629, doi: 10.1016/j.humpath.2008.02.021 (2008).
    1. Diab S. G. et al.. Tumor characteristics and clinical outcome of tubular and mucinous breast carcinomas. J Clin Oncol 17, 1442–1448 (1999).
    1. Churi C. R. et al.. Mutation profiling in cholangiocarcinoma: prognostic and therapeutic implications. PLoS One 9, e115383, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0115383 (2014).
    1. Biankin A. V. et al.. Pancreatic cancer genomes reveal aberrations in axon guidance pathway genes. Nature 491, 399–405, doi: 10.1038/nature11547 (2012).
    1. Di Micco R. et al.. Oncogene-induced senescence is a DNA damage response triggered by DNA hyper-replication. Nature 444, 638–642, doi: 10.1038/nature05327 (2006).
    1. Guerra C. et al.. Chronic pancreatitis is essential for induction of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma by K-Ras oncogenes in adult mice. Cancer Cell 11, 291–302, doi: 10.1016/j.ccr.2007.01.012 (2007).
    1. Hingorani S. R. et al.. Preinvasive and invasive ductal pancreatic cancer and its early detection in the mouse. Cancer Cell 4, 437–450 (2003).
    1. Mazur P. K. & Siveke J. T. Genetically engineered mouse models of pancreatic cancer: unravelling tumour biology and progressing translational oncology. Gut 61, 1488–1500, doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2011-300756 (2012).
    1. Morris J. P. t., Wang S. C. & Hebrok M. KRAS, Hedgehog, Wnt and the twisted developmental biology of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Nat Rev Cancer 10, 683–695, doi: 10.1038/nrc2899 (2010).
    1. Pylayeva-Gupta Y., Grabocka E. & Bar-Sagi D. RAS oncogenes: weaving a tumorigenic web. Nat Rev Cancer 11, 761–774, doi: 10.1038/nrc3106 (2011).
    1. Seidler B. et al.. A Cre-loxP-based mouse model for conditional somatic gene expression and knockdown in vivo by using avian retroviral vectors. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105, 10137–10142, doi: 10.1073/pnas.0800487105 (2008).
    1. Collins M. A. et al.. Oncogenic Kras is required for both the initiation and maintenance of pancreatic cancer in mice. J Clin Invest 122, 639–653, doi: 10.1172/JCI59227 (2012).
    1. Ying H. et al.. Oncogenic Kras maintains pancreatic tumors through regulation of anabolic glucose metabolism. Cell 149, 656–670, doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2012.01.058 (2012).
    1. Collins M. A. et al.. Metastatic pancreatic cancer is dependent on oncogenic Kras in mice. PLoS One 7, e49707, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0049707 (2012).
    1. Boone B. A. et al.. Loss of SMAD4 staining in pre-operative cell blocks is associated with distant metastases following pancreaticoduodenectomy with venous resection for pancreatic cancer. J Surg Oncol 110, 171–175, doi: 10.1002/jso.23606 (2014).
    1. Singh P., Srinivasan R. & Wig J. D. SMAD4 genetic alterations predict a worse prognosis in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Pancreas 41, 541–546, doi: 10.1097/MPA.0b013e318247d6af (2012).
    1. Biankin A. V. et al.. DPC4/Smad4 expression and outcome in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. J Clin Oncol 20, 4531–4542 (2002).
    1. Winter J. M. et al.. Failure patterns in resected pancreas adenocarcinoma: lack of predicted benefit to SMAD4 expression. Ann Surg 258, 331–335, doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e31827fe9ce (2013).
    1. Singh A. et al.. A gene expression signature associated with “K-Ras addiction” reveals regulators of EMT and tumor cell survival. Cancer Cell 15, 489–500, doi: 10.1016/j.ccr.2009.03.022 (2009).
    1. Basturk O. et al.. A Revised Classification System and Recommendations From the Baltimore Consensus Meeting for Neoplastic Precursor Lesions in the Pancreas. Am J Surg Pathol 39, 1730–1741, doi: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000000533 (2015).

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer og samarbeidspartnere

Medisinsk tilstand

Legemiddelintervensjoner

3
Abonnere