Article

Immunohistochemistry for SDHB divides gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) into 2 distinct types.

Department of Anatomical Pathology, Royal North Shore Hospital, St Leonards, New South Wales 2065, Australia.
The American journal of surgical pathology (Impact Factor: 4.06). 03/2010; 34(5):636-44. DOI: 10.1097/PAS.0b013e3181d6150d
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The Carney triad (CT) is gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST), paraganglioma, and pulmonary chondroma. The GISTs of CT show different clinical, molecular, and morphologic features to usual adult GISTs but are similar to the majority of pediatric GISTs. We postulated that these GISTs would show negative staining for succinate dehydrogenase B (SDHB). We performed SDHB immunohistochemistry on GISTs arising in 5 individuals with CT, 1 child, 7 individuals with GIST in young adulthood including 2 with germline KIT mutations, 3 individuals with neurofibromatosis 1, one 63-year-old female with multifocal gastric epithelioid GIST with lymph node metastases, and 104 consecutive unselected individuals with apparently sporadic GIST. The GISTs and paragangliomas arising in CT, the pediatric GIST, and the multifocal gastric GIST from the 63-year-old showed negative SDHB staining. GISTs from the 7 young adults and 3 with neurofibromatosis were SDHB positive. Of the unselected GISTs, 101 (97%) were positive. One of the negative GISTs arose in a 48-year-old female with previous recurrent multifocal gastric GISTs and the other 2 arose in females also in their 40s with gastric GISTs with epithelioid morphology. We conclude that negative staining for SDHB is characteristic of the GISTs of CT and the subgroup of pediatric GISTs which it resembles. Furthermore, when negative staining occurs in apparently sporadic GISTs in adults, the GISTs show morphologic and clinical features similar to pediatric and CT type GISTs. GISTs may therefore be divided into type 1 (SDHB positive) and type 2 (SDHB negative) subtypes.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
135 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This review aims to summarize recent knowledge gained about gastrointestinal stromal tumour (GIST) of particular relevance to histopathologists. KIT and PDGFRA mutation analyses can be useful for confirming a diagnosis of GIST, but there are some diagnostic limitations to these analyses, and so immunohistochemical markers currently remain crucial to the diagnostic process. Of these markers, CD117 and Discovered on GIST 1 (DOG1) are currently the most sensitive and specific markers of GIST, and recent data appear to disprove the fear that antigen retrieval causes false-positive CD117 immunostaining. The accurate prognostication of GIST has been greatly helped by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP) classification systems, although both systems still have limitations, and the behaviours of certain GIST subgroups are less well predicted by both systems. KIT and PDGFRA mutation analyses can help to predict the response of GISTs to receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors, and both GISTs that respond and those that show resistance to these inhibitors may show characteristic pathological changes. Some GIST subgroups (e.g. Carney syndrome and paediatric GISTs) have had recently described clinicopathological and/or molecular characteristics which may help with the diagnosis and/or treatment of these specific neoplasms.
    Histopathology 06/2011; 59(5):807-21. · 2.86 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: About 85% of paediatric gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GISTs) and about 10-15% of adult GISTs do not harbour any mutations in the KIT and PDGFRA genes and are defined as KIT/PDGFRA wild type (WT). Over the years it has been demonstrated that KIT/PDGFRA WT GISTs are profoundly different from mutant GIST in clinical and molecular profiles, so that they are now considered a separate pathological entity. Moreover, due to their extreme molecular and clinical heterogeneity, KIT/PDGFRA WT GIST should be considered as a family of diseases and not as a single disease entity. However, although several genetic alterations belonging only to KIT/PDGFRA WT GIST have been identified, the exact role of these molecules in the pathogenesis and development of this subgroup is not yet defined. The aim of this review is to report all current data about the molecular biology of syndromic and non-syndromic KIT/PDGFRA WT GIST, focusing on the potential clinical implication of each biological feature shared by this subgroup and discussing unresolved problems and future research perspectives on this topic. WT GIST is definitely a set of different diseases sustained by specific molecular alterations not yet completely known. Large series of patients are required for defining the biological fingerprint of each subtype and integrating it with clinical data. This will allow the transfer of biological information to clinical practice and its use as an additional tool for diagnosis, prognosis and selection of medical treatment.
    Journal of Medical Genetics 07/2013; · 5.70 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Succinate dehydrogenase-deficient gastrointestinal stromal tumors (SDH-deficient GISTs) are a unique class of GIST defined by negative immunohistochemical staining for succinate dehydrogenase B (SDHB). SDH-deficient GISTs show distinctive clinical and pathologic features including absence of KIT and PDGFRA mutations, exclusive gastric location, common lymph node metastasis, a prognosis not predicted by size and mitotic rate, and indolent behavior of metastases. They may be syndromal with some being associated with the Carney Triad or germline SDHA, SDHB, SDHC, or SDHD mutations (Carney-Stratakis syndrome). It is normally recommended that genetic testing for SDHA, SDHB, SDHC, and SDHD be offered whenever an SDH-deficient GIST is encountered. However, testing for all 4 genes is burdensome and beyond the means of most centers. In this study we performed SDHA mutation and immunohistochemical analyses for SDHA on 10 SDH-deficient GISTs. Three showed negative staining for SDHA, and all of these were associated with germline SDHA mutations. In 2 tumors, 3 novel mutations were identified (p.Gln54X, p.Thr267Met, and c.1663+3G>C), none of which have previously been reported in GISTs or other SDH-associated tumors. Seven showed positive staining for SDHA and were not associated with SDHA mutation. In conclusion, 30% of SDH-deficient GISTs in this study were associated with germline SDHA mutation. Negative staining for SDHA can be used to triage formal genetic testing for SDHA when an SDH-deficient GIST is encountered.
    The American journal of surgical pathology 10/2012; · 4.06 Impact Factor