Genomic and Pathologic Profiling of Very Well-Differentiated Gastric Adenocarcinoma of Intestinal Type

Résumé fourni par la source

Very well-differentiated adenocarcinoma of intestinal type is a distinct subtype of gastric cancer characterized by anastomosing glands with a hand-in-hand pattern and low-grade cytologic atypia resembling intestinal metaplasia. This is a slow-growing neoplasm with an indolent clinical course; however, a subset demonstrates transformation into adenocarcinoma with higher-grade histology, typically diffuse-type carcinoma, and behaves aggressively. This study aimed to better characterize the genomic and pathologic features, with a focus on factors associated with diffuse-type transformation. A total of 58 cases with (n=31) and without (n=27) diffuse-type transformation were analyzed for molecular and pathologic features. First, comprehensive deep DNA sequencing was conducted in 18 cases (discovery cohort), followed by a digital droplet polymerase chain reaction of hot spot RHOA mutations in 40 cases (validation cohort). In total, RHOA mutations were the most common alteration (34%), followed by loss of ARID1A (12%), p53 alterations (10%), and CLDN18 :: ARHGAP26/6 fusions (3.4%). FGFR2 amplification was identified in an advanced case with a p53 alteration. Altered p53 expression was recognized only in higher-grade components and was significantly associated with advanced disease ( P =0.0015) and diffuse-type transformation ( P =0.026). A mixed mucin phenotype was also strongly correlated with advanced disease ( P <0.001) and diffuse-type transformation ( P <0.001). Decreased E-cadherin expression was frequently observed (74%) in poorly cohesive components. This study demonstrated that a subset of RHOA -mutant diffuse-type gastric cancers develops through the transformation of very well-differentiated adenocarcinoma of intestinal type. Our observations suggest a mixed mucin phenotype as a risk factor and alterations in p53 and E-cadherin as drivers of diffuse-type transformation.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.