Advertisement

Molecular and Genetic Markers in Appendiceal Mucinous Tumors: A Systematic Review

  • Andrew Stein
  • Erin Strong
  • T. Clark Gamblin
  • Callisia Clarke
  • Susan Tsai
  • James Thomas
  • Ben George
  • Harveshp MogalEmail author
Gastrointestinal Oncology
  • 40 Downloads

Abstract

Introduction

The role of somatic mutation profiling in the management of appendiceal mucinous tumors (AMTs) is evolving. Using a systematic review, we identified somatic alterations (SAs) that comprise histopathologic types of AMTs and those associated with aggressive clinical phenotypes.

Methods

MEDLINE/PubMed was searched for studies on AMTs including molecular markers or genomic alterations, published between 1990 and 2018. Studies were grouped under low- and high-grade histological type for primary and metastatic tumors.

Results

Twenty-one studies involving 1099 tumors (primary/metastatic) were identified. Seven studies involving 101 primary low-grade AMTs identified KRAS (76.5%) as the predominant SA. Four studies noted GNAS in 45.2% of 42 low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasms, and KRAS was identified in 74.4% of 14 studies with 238 low-grade pseudomyxoma peritonei (PMP). GNAS was noted in 56% of 101 tumors and TP53 was noted in only 9.7% of 31 tumors. Primary high-grade tumors demonstrated lower SAs in KRAS (50.4% of 369 tumors) and GNAS (27.8% of 97 tumors), and higher SAs in TP53 (26.0% of 123 tumors). In high-grade PMP, SAs were noted in KRAS (55.0% of 200 tumors), GNAS (35.0% of 60 tumors), and TP53 (26.3% of 19 tumors). No clear association was noted between SAs and survival.

Conclusions

KRAS and GNAS are frequently altered in low-grade AMTs, while TP53 is frequently altered in high-grade AMTs, with no apparent change in expression between primary and metastatic tumors. Although SAs may provide valuable insights into variability in tumor biology, larger studies utilizing clinically annotated genomic databases from multi-institutional consortiums are needed to improve their identification and clinical applicability.

Notes

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by the Sebastian Raclaw Abdominal Cancer Fund at the Medical College of Wisconsin.

Disclosures

Andrew Stein, Erin Strong, T. Clark Gamblin, Callisia Clarke, Susan Tsai, James Thomas, Ben George, and Harveshp Mogal have no disclosures to declare.

References

  1. 1.
    Carr NJ, Cecil TD, Mohamed F, et al. A consensus for classification and pathologic reporting of pseudomyxoma peritonei and associated appendiceal neoplasia. Am J Surg Pathol. 2016;40(1):14–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Liu X, Mody K, de Abreu FB, et al. Molecular profiling of appendiceal epithelial tumors using massively parallel sequencing to identify somatic mutations. Clin Chem. 2014;60(7):1004–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alakus H, Babicky ML, Ghosh P, et al. Genome-wide mutational landscape of mucinous carcinomatosis peritonei of appendiceal origin. Genome Med. 2014;6(5):43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ramaswamy V. Pathology of mucinous appendiceal tumors and pseudomyxoma peritonei. Indian J Surg Oncol. 2016;7(154):258–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Panarelli NC, Yantiss RK. Mucinous neoplasms of the appendix and peritoneum. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2011;135(10):1261–1268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sjoblom T, Jones S, Wood LD, et al. The Consensus coding sequences of human breast and colorectal cancers. Science. 2006;314(5797):268–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cancer Genome Atlas. Comprehensive molecular characterization of human colon and rectal cancer. Nature. 2012;487(7407):330–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Shukla HD. Comprehensive analysis of cancer-proteogenome to identify biomarkers for the early diagnosis and prognosis of cancer. Proteomes. 2017;5(4):28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Noguchi R, Yano H, Gohda Y, et al. Molecular profiles of high-grade and low-grade pseudomyxoma peritonei. Cancer Med. 2015;4(12):1809–1816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Borazanci E, Millis SZ, Kimbrough J, Doll N, von Hoff D, Ramanathan RK. Potential actionable targets in appendiceal cancer detected by immunohistochemistry, fluorescent in situ hybridization, and mutational analysis. J Gastrointest Oncol. 2017;8(1):164–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ramnani DM, Wistuba II, Behrens C, Gazdar AF, Sobin LH, Albores-Saavedra J. K-ras and p53 mutations in the pathogenesis of classical and goblet cell carcinoids of the appendix. Cancer. 1999;86(1):14–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stancu M, Wu T-T, Wallace C, Houlihan PS, Hamilton SR, Rashid A. Genetic Alterations in goblet cell carcinoids of the vermiform appendix and comparison with gastrointestinal carcinoid tumors. Mod Pathol. 2003;16(12):1189–1198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dimmler A, Geddert H, Faller G. EGFR, KRAS, BRAF-mutations and microsatellite instability are absent in goblet cell carcinoids of the appendix. Pathol Res Pract. 2014;210(5):274–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hara K, Saito T, Hayashi T, et al. A mutation spectrum that includes GNAS, KRAS and TP53 may be shared by mucinous neoplasms of the appendix. Pathol Res Pract. 2015;211(9):657–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kabbani W, Houlihan PS, Luthra R, Hamilton SR, Rashid A. Mucinous and nonmucinous appendiceal adenocarcinomas: different clinicopathological features but similar genetic alterations. Mod Pathol. 2002;15(6):599–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Raghav KPS, Shetty AV, Kazmi SMA, et al. Impact of molecular alterations and targeted therapy in appendiceal adenocarcinomas. Oncologist. 2013;18(12):1270–1277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zauber P, Berman E, Marotta S, Sabbath-Solitare M, Bishop T. Ki-ras gene mutations are invariably present in low-grade mucinous tumors of the vermiform appendix. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2011;46(7–8):869–874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shetty S, Thomas P, Ramanan B, Sharma P, Govindarajan V, Loggie B. Kras mutations and p53 overexpression in pseudomyxoma peritonei: association with phenotype and prognosis. J Surg Res. 2013;180(1):97–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Davison JM, Choudry HA, Pingpank JF, et al. Clinicopathologic and molecular analysis of disseminated appendiceal mucinous neoplasms: identification of factors predicting survival and proposed criteria for a three-tiered assessment of tumor grade. Mod Pathol. 2014;27(11):1521–1539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Singhi AD, Davison JM, Choudry HA, et al. GNAS is frequently mutated in both low-grade and high-grade disseminated appendiceal mucinous neoplasms but does not affect survival. Hum Pathol. 2014;45(8):1737–1743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pietrantonio F, Perrone F, Mennitto A, et al. Toward the molecular dissection of peritoneal pseudomyxoma. Ann Oncol. 2016;27(11):2097–2103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pietrantonio F, Berenato R, Maggi C, et al. GNAS mutations as prognostic biomarker in patients with relapsed peritoneal pseudomyxoma receiving metronomic capecitabine and bevacizumab: a clinical and translational study. J Transl Med. 2016;14(1):125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nummela P, Saarinen L, Thiel A, et al. Genomic profile of pseudomyxoma peritonei analyzed using next-generation sequencing and immunohistochemistry. Int J Cancer. 2015;136(5):E282–E289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Matsubara A, Sekine S, Kushima R, Ogawa R, Taniguchi H, Tsuda H. Frequent GNAS and KRAS mutations in pyloric gland adenoma of the stomach and duodenum. J Pathol. 2013;229(4):579–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Szych C, Staebler A, Connolly DC, et al. Molecular genetic evidence supporting the clonality and appendiceal origin of Pseudomyxoma peritonei in women. Am J Pathol. 1999;154(6):1849–1855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zhang C, Guo W, Wu J, Song B. Differential high-resolution melting analysis for the detection of K-ras codons 12 and 13 mutations in pancreatic cancer. Pancreas. 2011;40(8):1283–1288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Downward J. Targeting RAS Signalling in cancer therapy. Nat Rev Cancer. 2003;3(1):11–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Biase D De, Visani M, Baccarini P, et al. Next generation sequencing improves the accuracy of KRAS mutation analysis in endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration pancreatic lesions. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(2):e87651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Green DE, Jayakrishnan TT, Hwang M, Pappas SG, Gamblin TC, Turaga KK. Immunohistochemistry—microarray analysis of patients with peritoneal metastases of appendiceal or colorectal origin. Front Surg. 2015;1:50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Idziaszczyk S, Wilson CH, Smith CG, Adams DJ, Cheadle JP. Analysis of the frequency of GNAS codon 201 mutations in advanced colorectal cancer. Cancer Genet Cytogenet. 2010;202(1):67–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wu J, Matthaei H, Maitra A, et al. Recurrent GNAS mutations define an unexpected pathway for pancreatic cyst development. Sci Transl Med. 2011;3(92):92ra66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Nishikawa G, Sekine S, Ogawa R, et al. Frequent GNAS mutations in low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasms. Br J Cancer. 2013;108(4):951–958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Levine AJ. p53, the cellular gatekeeper for growth and division. Cell. 1997;88:323–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Fleming NI, Jorissen RN, Mouradov D, et al. SMAD2, SMAD3 and SMAD4 mutations in colorectal cancer. Cancer Res. 2013;73(2):725–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sabeti A, Bahreyni A, Soleimani A, et al. Biochimie Role of adenomatous polyposis coli (APC) gene mutations in the pathogenesis of colorectal cancer; current status and perspectives. Biochimie. 2019;157:64–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Komm M. Primary mucinous adenocarcinoma of the vermiform appendix with high grade microsatellite instability. J Cancer. 2011;2:302–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Taggart MW, Galbincea J, Mansfield PF, et al. High-level microsatellite instability in appendiceal carcinomas. Am J Surg Pathol. 2013;37(8):1192–1200.  https://doi.org/10.1097/pas.0b013e318282649b CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Au TH, Wang K, Stenehjem D, Garrido-Laguna I. Personalized and precision medicine: integrating genomics into treatment decisions in gastrointestinal malignancies. J Gastrointest Oncol. 2017;8(3):387–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Shaib WL, Assi R, Shamseddine A, et al. Appendiceal mucinous neoplasms: diagnosis and management. Oncologist. 2017;22(9):1107–1116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Vigliar E, Malapelle U, Luca C De, Bellevicine C, Troncone G. Challenges and opportunities of next-generation sequencing: a cytopathologist’s perspective. Cytopathology. 2015;26(5):271–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Grützmann R, Pilarsky C (eds). Cancer gene profiling, 2nd ed. New York, NY: Humana Press; 2016.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Picelli S. Single-cell RNA-sequencing: the future of genome biology is now. RNA Biol. 2017;14(5):637–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrew Stein
    • 1
  • Erin Strong
    • 1
  • T. Clark Gamblin
    • 1
  • Callisia Clarke
    • 1
  • Susan Tsai
    • 1
  • James Thomas
    • 2
  • Ben George
    • 2
  • Harveshp Mogal
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Surgery, Division of Surgical OncologyMedical College of WisconsinMilwaukeeUSA
  2. 2.Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology/OncologyMedical College of WisconsinMilwaukeeUSA

Personalised recommendations