Malignant Vascular Tumors&Mdash
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Modern Pathology (2014) 27, S30–S38 S30 & 2014 USCAP, Inc All rights reserved 0893-3952/14 $32.00 Malignant vascular tumors—an update Cristina Antonescu Department of Pathology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA Although benign hemangiomas are among the most common diagnoses amid connective tissue tumors, sarcomas showing endothelial differentiation (ie, angiosarcoma and epithelioid hemangioendothelioma) represent under 1% of all sarcoma diagnoses, and thus it is likely that fewer than 500 people in the United States are affected each year. Differential diagnosis of malignant vascular tumors can be often quite challenging, either at the low end of the spectrum, distinguishing an epithelioid hemangioendothelioma from an epithelioid hemangioma, or at the high-grade end of the spectrum, between an angiosarcoma and a malignant epithelioid hemangioendothelioma. Within this differential diagnosis both clinico-radiological features (ie, size and multifocality) and immunohistochemical markers (ie, expression of endothelial markers) are often similar and cannot distinguish between benign and malignant vascular lesions. Molecular ancillary tests have long been needed for a more objective diagnosis and classification of malignant vascular tumors, particularly within the epithelioid phenotype. As significant advances have been recently made in understanding the genetic signatures of vascular tumors, this review will take the opportunity to provide a detailed update on these findings. Specifically, this article will focus on the following aspects: (1) pathological and molecular features of epithelioid hemangioendothelioma, including the more common WWTR1–CAMTA1 fusion, as well as the recently described YAP1–TFE3 fusion, identified in a morphological variant of epithelioid hemangioendothe- lioma; (2) discuss the heterogeneity of angiosarcoma clinical, morphological and genetic spectrum, with particular emphasis of MYC and FLT4 gene amplification in radiation-induced angiosarcoma; and (3) provide a practical guide in the differential diagnosis of epithelioid vascular tumors using molecular testing. Modern Pathology (2014) 27, S30–S38; doi:10.1038/modpathol.2013.176 Keywords: angiosarcoma; epithelioid hemangioendothelioma; WWTR1–CAMTA1; YAP1–TFE3 Epithelioid hemangioendothelioma classic and malignant EHE, based on mitotic activity and size, in an effort to reflect different biological Incidence, Demographics. and Terminology subsets.5,6 Epithelioid hemangioendothelioma (EHE) is a rare soft tissue tumor, substantially less common than Pathological Features angiosarcoma, but given the more indolent nature of EHEs have a propensity for angiocentric growth, the tumor it encompasses a larger prevalent popula- expanding the vessel wall, obliterating the lumen tion.1 It occurs in a younger population, with a peak and spreading centrifugally into surrounding tissue incidence in the 4th to 5th decade.2 Women appear where they induce a sclerotic response (Figures to be affected more commonly than men. In a survey 1a-c). Microscopically, EHE are arranged in single of EHE patients from an EHE support group, overall files, cords and small nests (Figures 1d,e), typically survival was 73% at 5 years.3 lacking well-formed vascular channels, with only EHE of soft tissue was first described by Weiss and immature, intracytoplasmic lumina being observed Enzinger.4 As its clinical behavior is intermediate (Figures 1f). Other distinctive features include an between a benign hemangioma and a high-grade infiltrative growth pattern, encasing surrounding angiosarcoma, the term ‘hemangioendothelioma’ structures and lack of a lobular growth pattern was suggested. Subsequently, EHE of soft tissue typically seen with benign hemangiomas. EHE cells was stratified into two risk groups of malignancy, are separated by a characteristic extracellular sul- fated acid-rich matrix, varying from a light blue Correspondence: Dr C Antonescu, MD, Department of Pathology, (myxoid, myxo-chondroid, Figures 1f,g) to a deep Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New pink (hyaline, Figure 1h) extracellular stroma. The York, NY 10065, USA. Email: [email protected] cells have a pale to more densely eosinophilic Received 18 July 2013; revised 3 September 2013; accepted 4 cytoplasm containing vacuoles, which deform the September 2013 cytoplasm, so-called ‘blister cells’. Some vacuoles www.modernpathology.org Malignant vascular tumors C Antonescu S31 Figure 1 Conventional epithelioid hemangioendothelioma, pathological findings: (a) gross appearance of an epithelioid hemangioen- dothelioma (EHE) of the superior vena cava, tumor being entirely confined to the vein wall; (b) van Gieson elastic stain highlighting the elastic structure of a vessel wall showing complete obliteration with tumor; (c) angiocentric growth involving a small vessel wall in a soft tissue EHE; microscopic appearance showing cords (d) or solid sheets (e) of epithelioid cells with moderate amount of pale eosinophilic cytoplasm; (f) the presence of intracytoplasmic lumens (blisters cells) is a common feature, as is the myxochodnroid quality of the extracellular stroma; occasionally the matrix may more myxoid (g) or hyalinized (h) in appearance. (i) Malignant EHE with hyperchromasia, nuclear pleomorphism and increased mitotic activity. contain fragmented erythrocytes. In most cases, the transcriptional factor activation and signaling in the cells show a low nuclear grade, however, a small hippo pathway that is normally highly expressed in subset of cases show moderate to marked nuclear endothelial cells.10 WWTR1 fuses to CAMTA1,on pleomorphism, with overt hyperchromasia and 1p36, which belongs to a family of calmodulin- increased mitotic activity (Figure 1i). This latter binding transcription activators, normally found only appearance may be quite challenging to separate in brain. The 1p36 region is frequently lost in from angiosarcoma in a small biopsy sample. neuroblastoma and gliomas, implicating CAMTA1 as a tumor suppressor gene.11,12 Most cases with classic morphology (ie, lacking mature vascular Genetics channel formation) examined so far contain this translocation,8,9 which is not directly targetable with A t(1;3)(p36.3;q25) translocation was initially present day therapeutics, but may reveal downstream reported in two cases of EHE, suggesting that this targets in future studies. may represent a recurrent abnormality in this In 50% of cases, EHE have a multifocal clinical subgroup of tumors.7 Ten years later, two back-to- presentation.3 It has long been debated if this back studies, using different methodologies, occurrence is truly multifocal or represents an were able to clone the genes involved in the unusual pattern of loco-regional metastasis. This is t(1;3)(p36.3;q25) translocation.8,9 WWTR1 (also particularly relevant in visceral EHE, where the called TAZ), on 3q25, is a gene involved in 14-3-3 multifocal disease is limited to one organ (ie, liver, Modern Pathology (2014) 27, S30–S38 Malignant vascular tumors S32 C Antonescu lung), without dissemination to other distant sites. activity and tumor size have been used to stratify As a result of this clinical behavior, patients with tumors into low and high-risk groups: patients with multifocal liver EHE are candidates for liver trans- tumors 43 cm in diameter and having more than plantation. Thus, by analysis of WWTR1–CAMTA1 three mitoses/50 HPFs have a 5-year disease-specific breakpoints in multiple nodules from two patients survival of 59% in contrast to 100% survival in with multifocal hepatic EHE, we were able to prove patients whose tumors lacked these features.5 In recently that this phenomenon is monoclonal, their study, however, the presence of nuclear representing metastatic implants of the same pleomorphism and necrosis were not indicative of neoplastic clone rather than a ‘field-effect’ or adverse outcome. Furthermore, these criteria do not synchronous occurrence of multiple neoplastic apply for multifocal presentation and visceral clones.13 locations. Thus, larger studies are needed to better In a recent study, we identified the presence of define prognostic criteria in molecularly defined YAP1–TFE3 gene fusion in a specific subset of EHE, EHE patients. lacking the WWTR1–CAMTA1 fusion and displaying a somewhat distinct morphology and strong TFE3 expression by immunohistochemistry.14 YAP1 trans- Angiosarcoma criptional co-activator is a major downstream effector of the Hippo pathway and shares signifi- Incidence and Demographics cant functional and sequence homology with Angiosarcoma may arise in any part of the body, but WWTR1. As the S127 14-3-3 binding site, WW is more common in soft tissue than in bone. The domain and its C-terminal transactivation domain peak age of incidence appears to be the 7th decade, are not retained in the fusion, it is most likely that and men are affected more than women. The head YAP1 provides a strong promoter to the oncogenic and neck area is probably the most common site of 14 TFE3 function of the fusion protein. The anatomic diagnosis, and the most common site of radiation- distribution of these lesions is mainly within soft induced angiosarcoma development is the breast. tissue, ranging from head and neck, trunk and After rhabdomyosarcoma, angiosarcoma is probably extremities, with only one case occurring in the the second most common sarcoma to arise from bone (vertebral body). Additional cases were seen in germ cell tumors.16 the lung, with multifocal presentation.The