Combination of TP53 and AGR3 to distinguish ovarian high-grade serous carcinoma from low-grade serous carcinoma

Qiu,Chunping; Wang,Yu; Wang,Xiao; Zhang,Qing; Li,Yinuo; Xu,Ying; Jin,Chengjuan; Bu,Hualei; Zheng,Wenxin; Yang,Xingsheng; Lu,Nan; Kong,Beihua

doi:10.3892/ijo.2018.4360

Combination of TP53 and AGR3 to distinguish ovarian high-grade serous carcinoma from low-grade serous carcinoma

Authors:
- Chunping Qiu
- Yu Wang
- Xiao Wang
- Qing Zhang
- Yinuo Li
- Ying Xu
- Chengjuan Jin
- Hualei Bu
- Wenxin Zheng
- Xingsheng Yang
- Nan Lu
- Beihua Kong
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong 250012, P.R. China, Department of Pathology, School of Medicine, Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong 250012, P.R. China, Department of Pathology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX 75390-9072, USA, Department of Diagnostics, School of Medicine, Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong 250012, P.R. China
Published online on: April 4, 2018 https://doi.org/10.3892/ijo.2018.4360
Pages: 2041-2050

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

Ovarian high-grade serous carcinoma (HGSC) and low-grade serous carcinoma (LGSC) are distinct gynecologic neoplasms with diverse pathogenesis and characteristic features. They respond differently to same modalities of treatment protocol and have dissimilar prognosis. Thus, it is essential to obtain accurate differential diagnosis of HGSC and LGSC prior to clinical treatment. In the present study, mRNA expression profiles were generated from 5 HGSC and 6 LGSC specimen using HTSeq, and 699 differentially expressed genes (>2-fold difference) were identified using the DESeq R package. Dendrograms produced by unsupervised hierarchical clustering completely distinguished HGSC from LGSC. Among differentially expressed genes between HGSC and LGSC, anterior gradient homolog 3 (AGR3) was highly upregulated in LGSC compared to HGSC, which was validated by reverse transcription‑quantitative polymerase chain reaction and western blotting. Then, anti‑tumor protein 53 (TP53) and anti-AGR3 immunohistochemistry were performed on 145 HGSC and 30 LGSC samples. Consistent with previous studies, abnormal expression of TP53 (0 or ≥75% positive expression) was observed in 87.6% of HGSC and 13.3% of LGSC samples. Positive staining of AGR3 had a sensitivity of 80.0% and specificity of 89.7% for LGSC. TP53 and AGR3 were both efficient in distinguishing HGSC from LGSC (P<0.001). Receiver operating characteristic analysis revealed a similar area under the curve for AGR3 (0.848) and TP53 (0.871). Through combination of the two markers (TP53 wild‑type pattern and AGR3‑positive expression), the accuracy of differential diagnosis was up to 93.1%. These findings provide compelling evidence that differential diagnosis of HGSC and LGSC can be improved by combined application of these two markers on the basis of conventional histopathological diagnosis.

View Figures

View References

1	Siegel RL, Miller KD and Jemal A: Cancer Statistics, 2017. CA Cancer J Clin. 67:7–30. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar
2	Prat J: Ovarian carcinomas: Five distinct diseases with different origins, genetic alterations, and clinicopathological features. Virchows Archiv. 460:237–249. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar
3	Köbel M, Kalloger SE, Boyd N, McKinney S, Mehl E, Palmer C, Leung S, Bowen NJ, Ionescu DN, Rajput A, et al: Ovarian carcinoma subtypes are different diseases: Implications for biomarker studies. PLoS Med. 5:e2322008. View Article : Google Scholar
4	Malpica A, Deavers MT, Lu K, Bodurka DC, Atkinson EN, Gershenson DM and Silva EG: Grading ovarian serous carcinoma using a two-tier system. Am J Surg Pathol. 28:496–504. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar
5	Bertelsen K, Holund B and Andersen E: Reproducibility and prognostic value of histologic type and grade in early epithelial ovarian cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 3:72–79. 1993. View Article : Google Scholar
6	Shimizu Y, Kamoi S, Amada S, Hasumi K, Akiyama F and Silverberg SG: Toward the development of a universal grading system for ovarian epithelial carcinoma. I. Prognostic significance of histopathologic features - problems involved in the architectural grading system. Gynecol Oncol. 70:2–12. 1998. View Article : Google Scholar
7	Silverberg SG: Histopathologic grading of ovarian carcinoma: A review and proposal. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 19:7–15. 2000. View Article : Google Scholar
8	Vang R, Shih IeM and Kurman RJ: Ovarian low-grade and high-grade serous carcinoma: Pathogenesis, clinicopathologic and molecular biologic features, and diagnostic problems. Adv Anat Pathol. 16:267–282. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar
9	Malpica A, Deavers MT, Lu K, Liu J, Atkinson EN, Gershenson DM and Silva EG: Grading ovarian serous carcinomas using a two-tier system. Mod Pathol. 15:202a–203a. 2002.
10	Tone AA, Begley H, Sharma M, Murphy J, Rosen B, Brown TJ and Shaw PA: Gene expression profiles of luteal phase fallopian tube epithelium from BRCA mutation carriers resemble high-grade serous carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res. 14:4067–4078. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar
11	Marquez RT, Baggerly KA, Patterson AP, Liu J, Broaddus R, Frumovitz M, Atkinson EN, Smith DI, Hartmann L, Fishman D, et al: Patterns of gene expression in different histotypes of epithelial ovarian cancer correlate with those in normal fallopian tube, endometrium, and colon. Clin Cancer Res. 11:6116–6126. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar
12	Li J, Abushahin N, Pang S, Xiang L, Chambers SK, Fadare O, Kong B and Zheng W: Tubal origin of ‘ovarian’ low-grade serous carcinoma. Mod Pathol. 24:1488–1499. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar
13	Qiu C, Lu N, Wang X, Zhang Q, Yuan C, Yan S, Dongol S, Li Y, Sun X, Sun C, et al: Gene expression profiles of ovarian low-grade serous carcinoma resemble those of fallopian tube epithelium. Gynecol Oncol. 147:634–641. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar
14	May T, Shoni M, Crum CP, Xian W, Vathipadiekal V, Birrer M, Rosen B, Tone A and Murphy KJ: Low-grade and high-grade serous Mullerian carcinoma: Review and analysis of publicly available gene expression profiles. Gynecol Oncol. 128:488–492. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar
15	Vergote I, Tropé CG, Amant F, Kristensen GB, Ehlen T, Johnson N, Verheijen RHM, van der Burg MEL, Lacave AJ, Panici PB, et al European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer-Gynaecological Cancer Group; NCIC Clinical Trials Group: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy or primary surgery in stage IIIC or IV ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med. 363:943–953. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar
16	Pohl G, Ho CL, Kurman RJ, Bristow R, Wang TL and Shih IeM: Inactivation of the mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway as a potential target-based therapy in ovarian serous tumors with KRAS or BRAF mutations. Cancer Res. 65:1994–2000. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar
17	Malpica A, Deavers MT, Tornos C, Kurman RJ, Soslow R, Seidman JD, Munsell MF, Gaertner E, Frishberg D and Silva EG: Interobserver and intraobserver variability of a two-tier system for grading ovarian serous carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 31:1168–1174. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar
18	Ayhan A, Kurman RJ, Yemelyanova A, Vang R, Logani S, Seidman JD and Shih IeM: Defining the cut point between low-grade and high-grade ovarian serous carcinomas: A clinico-pathologic and molecular genetic analysis. Am J Surg Pathol. 33:1220–1224. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar
19	Kalloger SE, Köbel M, Leung S, Mehl E, Gao D, Marcon KM, Chow C, Clarke BA, Huntsman DG and Gilks CB: Calculator for ovarian carcinoma subtype prediction. Mod Pathol. 24:512–521. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar
20	Kim D, Pertea G, Trapnell C, Pimentel H, Kelley R and Salzberg SL: TopHat2: Accurate alignment of transcriptomes in the presence of insertions, deletions and gene fusions. Genome Biol. 14:R362013. View Article : Google Scholar
21	Mortazavi A, Williams BA, McCue K, Schaeffer L and Wold B: Mapping and quantifying mammalian transcriptomes by RNA-Seq. Nat Methods. 5:621–628. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar
22	O’Neill CJ, Deavers MT, Malpica A, Foster H and McCluggage WG: An immunohistochemical comparison between low-grade and high-grade ovarian serous carcinomas: Significantly higher expression of p53, MIB1, BCL2, HER-2/neu, and C-KIT in high-grade neoplasms. Am J Surg Pathol. 29:1034–1041. 2005.
23	Yemelyanova A, Vang R, Kshirsagar M, Lu D, Marks MA, Shih IeM and Kurman RJ: Immunohistochemical staining patterns of p53 can serve as a surrogate marker for TP53 mutations in ovarian carcinoma: An immunohistochemical and nucleotide sequencing analysis. Mod Pathol. 24:1248–1253. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar
24	Cole AJ, Dwight T, Gill AJ, Dickson KA, Zhu Y, Clarkson A, Gard GB, Maidens J, Valmadre S, Clifton-Bligh R, et al: Assessing mutant p53 in primary high-grade serous ovarian cancer using immunohistochemistry and massively parallel sequencing. Sci Rep. 6:261912016. View Article : Google Scholar
25	Altman AD, Nelson GS, Ghatage P, McIntyre JB, Capper D, Chu P, Nation JG, Karnezis AN, Han G, Kalloger SE, et al: The diagnostic utility of TP53 and CDKN2A to distinguish ovarian high-grade serous carcinoma from low-grade serous ovarian tumors. Mod Pathol. 26:1255–1263. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar
26	King ER, Tung CS, Tsang YTM, Zu Z, Lok GTM, Deavers MT, Malpica A, Wolf JK, Lu KH, Birrer MJ, et al: The anterior gradient homolog 3 (AGR3) gene is associated with differentiation and survival in ovarian cancer. Am J Surg Pathol. 35:904–912. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar
27	Vang R, Shih IeM and Kurman RJ: Fallopian tube precursors of ovarian low- and high-grade serous neoplasms. Histopathology. 62:44–58. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar
28	Bell D, Berchuck A, Birrer M, Chien J, Cramer DW, Dao F, Dhir R, DiSaia P, Gabra H, Glenn P, et al Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network: Integrated genomic analyses of ovarian carcinoma. Nature. 474:609–615. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar
29	Smith Sehdev AE, Sehdev PS and Kurman RJ: Noninvasive and invasive micropapillary (low-grade) serous carcinoma of the ovary: A clinicopathologic analysis of 135 cases. Am J Surg Pathol. 27:725–736. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar
30	Bell DA, Longacre TA, Prat J, Kohn EC, Soslow RA, Ellenson LH, Malpica A, Stoler MH and Kurman RJ: Serous borderline (low malignant potential, atypical proliferative) ovarian tumors: Workshop perspectives. Hum Pathol. 35:934–948. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar
31	Longacre TA, McKenney JK, Tazelaar HD, Kempson RL and Hendrickson MR: Ovarian serous tumors of low malignant potential (borderline tumors): Outcome-based study of 276 patients with long-term (> or =5-year) follow-up. Am J Surg Pathol. 29:707–723. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar
32	O’Neill CJ, McBride HA, Connolly LE, Deavers MT, Malpica A and McCluggage WG: High-grade ovarian serous carcinoma exhibits significantly higher p16 expression than low-grade serous carcinoma and serous borderline tumour. Histopathology. 50:773–779. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar
33	Vang R, Levine DA, Soslow RA, Zaloudek C, Shih IeM and Kurman RJ: Molecular alterations of TP53 are a defining feature of ovarian high-grade serous carcinoma: A rereview of cases lacking TP53 mutations in the Cancer Genome Atlas Ovarian Study. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 35:48–55. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar
34	Sundov D, Caric A, Mrklic I, Gugic D, Capkun V, Hofman ID, Mise BP and Tomic S: P53, MAPK, topoisomerase II alpha and Ki67 immunohistochemical expression and KRAS/BRAF mutation in ovarian serous carcinomas. Diagn Pathol. 8:212013. View Article : Google Scholar
35	Singer G, Stöhr R, Cope L, Dehari R, Hartmann A, Cao DF, Wang TL, Kurman RJ and Shih IeM: Patterns of p53 mutations separate ovarian serous borderline tumors and low- and high-grade carcinomas and provide support for a new model of ovarian carcinogenesis: A mutational analysis with immunohistochemical correlation. Am J Surg Pathol. 29:218–224. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar