Section 8 -

Balancing Morphology and Molecular Biology in the 21ST Century Juan Rosai, M.D. Milan, Italy

For the best part of the 20th century, the diagnosis and classification of human tumors has been largely based on their microscopic (i.e., cytologic and architectural) features as seen in hematoxylin-eosin-stained sections of formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded material. This generally highly efficient standard approach was often supplemented with information provided by "ancillary" techniques used depending on the circumstances, such as "special stains", electron microscopy and immunohistochemistry, performed with the aim to provide more precise information on the "cell of origin" of the tumor and on its expected behavior, including its anticipated response to various forms of therapy. The best studies that have been carried out along these lines are those that have integrated the various approaches in a selected and synergistic fashion. The end result of this collective effort was the realization that the examination of H&E-stained section should remain the first step for the identification and evaluation of a tumor, and also the guide by which to decide which additional studies are indicated, if any. Great damage to the credibility of pathologists is bound to occur if there is a systematic unwillingness on their part to explore the potential utility of any new technology, and this is particularly true in the current molecular biology-dominated era. At the same time, a distinct possibility for misinterpretation exists whenever a molecular biologist or other non-pathology-based investigator decides to tackle human tumors with total disregard for everything that has been learned over the years from the painstaking evaluation of their morphologic and phenotypic characteristics (or, worse, if he chooses to become his own pathologist in order to evaluate these features). Areas in which the integration of the morphologic and molecular biologic diagnostic approaches islikely to be of great benefit – as already proved in several instances - are the following: [1] Tumor diagnosis. The value of molecular biology-based tests can be nearly absolute (such as the finding of the gene fusion associated with desmoplastic small cell tumor, which in practice has superseded the morphologic diagnosis) or have a relative or circumstantial value in a morphologically difficult case. For instance, finding a PAX8/PPARg rearrangement or a Ras mutation in an encapsulated well-differentiated follicular neoplasm of the thyroid gland suggests that the lesion is not an adenoma bur either a follicular variant of papillary carcinoma or a follicular carcinoma. Siumilarly, the finding a K-Ras mutation in a pancreatic brush cytology specimen exhibiting atypia suggests that the lesion is malignant. [1] Molecular classification of tumors. Much has been written in recent years about a forthcoming molecular classification of human tumors based on gene expression analysis that will revolutioniza tumor taxonomy. Early courageous proposals along these lines have been made, particularly in the fields of breast cancer and malignant lymphoma. [2, 4] Whether such classifications will eventually replace the existing schemes primarily based on morphology remains to be seen. In any event, the role of the pathologist in the critical evaluation of these proposals will be crucial by asking the following questions: (1) Is the proposed classification biologically sound ? (2) Does it really represent a novel scheme ? It has been noted that so far most of the "molecular class discoveries" have actually represented rediscoveries of entities that had already been well-defined on clinico-pathologic grounds. (3) Can it be integrated to the existing morphology-based classification or should it totally independent of the latter? (4) Does it offer prognostic information above and beyond that already supplied by the existing classification, particularly once the individual tumors have been segregated according to their clinico-pathologic stage and microscopic grade? (5) Does it contain some specific information that can be correlated with a morphologic parameter or that can be extracted and adapted to an immunohistochemical assay or some other morphology-based approach? [5] [2 ] Targeted therapeutics. This is one of the most exciting developments in oncology at present, some of the most highly publicized examples being trastuzumab in breast carcinoma, imatinib mesylate in gastrointestinal stromal tumors, microsatellite instability in colorectal carcinoma, and 1p/19q loss in oligodendrogliomas. [3] There is no doubt that pathologists will play a major role in the development of this field, working in close collaboration with oncologists and molecular biologists. As Jay Hess [1] stated, this role will include: (1) Providing the primary diagnosis; (2) Determining before therapy whether a specific molecular target is present; (3) Evaluating the efficacy and possible side effects of new therapies; (4) Harvesting and analyzing tissues in therapeutic failures. [3] The unknown primary. The presence of markers that are expressed specifically or preferentially by certain tissue types is the main tool that pathologists have used for the identification of the site of the primary tumor in cases initially presenting with metastatic disease. These markers, originally of a cytoarchitectural nature, included in more recent types those identifiable at an ultrastructural and immunohistochemical level, and are now being detected at a markedly increasing pace through gene expression analysis. Markers particularly powerful in this regard because of their high degree of specificity are the nuclear-based transcription factors, such as myogenin, TTF-1 and FLI-1. References Hess JL. The advent of targeted therapeutics and implications for pathologists. Am J Clin Pathol 2002; 117:355-357. Quackenbush J. Microarray analysis and tumor classification. N Engl J Med 2006; 354:2463-2472. Ross JS, Schenkein DP, Pietrusko R, Rolfe M, Linette GP, Stec J, Stagliano NE, Ginsburg GS, Symmans WF, Pusztai L, Hortobagyi GN. Targeted therapies for Cancer 2004. Am J Clin Pathol 2004; 122:598-609. Segal NH, Pavlidis P, Antonescu CR, Maki RG, Noble WS, DeSantis D, Woodruff JM, Lewis JJ, Brennan MF, Houghton AN, Cordon-Cardo C. Classification and subtype prediction of adult soft tissue sarcoma by functional genomics. Am J Pathol 2003; 163:691-700. Shedden KA, Taylor JMG, Giordano TJ, Kuick R, Misek DE, Rennert G, Schwartz DR, Gruber SB, Longsdon C, Simeone D, Kardia SLR, Greenson JK, Cho KR, Beer DG, Fearon ER, Hanash S. Accurate molecular classification of human cancers based on gene expression using a simple classifier with a pathological tree-based framework. Am J Pathol 2003; 163:1985-1995.