Can we classify ampullary tumours better? Clinical, pathological and molecular features. Results of an AGEO study.

Br J Cancer 2019 Apr 6;120(7):697-702. Epub 2019 Mar 6.

Sorbonne Paris - Cité, Paris Descartes University, Department of Gastroenterology and GI Oncology, Georges Pompidou European Hospital, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France.

Background: Ampullary adenocarcinoma (AA) originates from either intestinal (INT) or pancreaticobiliary (PB) epithelium. Different prognostic factors of recurrence have been identified in previous studies.

Methods: In 91 AA patients of the AGEO retrospective multicentre cohort, we evaluated the centrally reviewed morphological classification, panel markers of Ang et al. including CK7, CK20, MUC1, MUC2 and CDX2, the 50-gene panel mutational analysis, and the clinicopathological AGEO prognostic score.

Results: Forty-three (47%) of the 91 tumours were Ang-INT, 29 (32%) were Ang-PB, 18 (20%) were ambiguous (Ang-AMB) and one could not be classified. Among these 90 tumours, 68.7% of INT tumours were Ang-INT and 78.2% of PB tumours were Ang-PB. MUC5AC expression was detected in 32.5% of the 86 evaluable cases. Among 71 tumours, KRAS, TP53, APC and PIK3CA were the most frequently mutated genes. The KRAS mutation was significantly more frequent in the PB subtype. In multivariate analysis, only AGEO prognostic score and tumour subtype were associated with relapse-free survival. Only AGEO prognostic score was associated with overall survival.

Conclusions: Mutational analysis and MUC5AC expression provide no additional value in the prognostic evaluation of AA patients. Ang et al. classification and the AGEO prognostic score were confirmed as a strong prognosticator for disease recurrence.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41416-019-0415-8DOI Listing
April 2019
4 Reads

Article Mentions


Provided by Crossref Event Data
twitter
Twitter:
March 7, 2019, 2:00 am EST

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

ageo prognostic
16
prognostic score
12
mutational analysis
8
tumours ang-int
8
muc5ac expression
8
ageo
6
tumours
6
prognostic
6
782% tumours
4
ang-int 782%
4
tumours kras
4
tumours 687%
4
687% int
4
int tumours
4
tumours ang-pb
4
evaluable cases
4
detected 325%
4
expression detected
4
classified tumours
4
ang-pb muc5ac
4

References

(Supplied by CrossRef)
Article in Pancreas
PE Robert et al.
Pancreas 2014
Article in J. Surg. Oncol.
WS Kim et al.
J. Surg. Oncol. 2012
Article in Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. EJSO
O Colussi et al.
Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. EJSO 2015
Article in Am. J. Surg. Pathol.
DC Ang et al.
Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2014
Article in J. Clin. Oncol.
DK Chang et al.
J. Clin. Oncol. 2013
Article in Br. J. Cancer
A Schueneman et al.
Br. J. Cancer 2015
Article in J. Clin. Pathol.
JM Leo et al.
J. Clin. Pathol. 2016
Article in Am. J. Surg. Pathol.
Y Xue et al.
Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2017
Article in Cell Rep.
MC Gingras et al.
Cell Rep. 2016
Article in Cancer Cell.
S Yachida et al.
Cancer Cell. 2016

Similar Publications