zubair w. baloch, md, phd, fascp virginia a. livolsi, md ... · zubair w. baloch, md, phd, fascp...
TRANSCRIPT
www.ascp.org/ascp2014
1006 An Integrated Clinicopathologic Approach to Thyroid Pathology
Zubair W. Baloch, MD, PhD, FASCP
Virginia A. LiVolsi, MD, MASCP Professor of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine
Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, PA
www.ascp.org/ascp2014
Speaker Disclosure
In the past 12 months, I have not had a
significant financial interest or other relationship
with the manufacturer(s) of the product(s) or
provider(s) of the service(s) that will be discussed
in my presentation.
www.ascp.org/ascp2014
Follicular Patterned Lesions
• Diagnosis and Classification
–Cytology
–Surgical Pathology
• Histologic Diagnosis
–Ancillary techniques
Ultrasound/autopsy
Palpation
Mazzaferri, 1993
Prevalence of Thyroid Nodules
Case of an Encapsulated Follicular Patterned Lesion
Thyroid Lesions Controversial?
Follicular patterned lesions
The term “Follicular”
• Cell of origin
– Capable of producing thyroid hormone and thyroglobulin
• Architecture / growth pattern
– Follicular – totally or >95% of the lesion displays a follicular growth pattern.
– Microfollicular
– Macrofollicular
Follicular Patterned Lesions
Cytologic Diagnosis & Classification
Follicular Patterned Lesions of Thyroid
• Cytology – Reality Check – FNA is a screening test for follicular patterned
nodules
– Cannot differentiate between follicular adenoma and carcinoma
– Most are diagnosed as “Follicular Lesion / Neoplasm”
– Up to 80% of cases diagnosed as such are benign on histologic examination (hyperplastic nodule or adenoma)
– Approximately half of malignant cases are follicular variant of papillary carcinoma
FNA Diagnosis Follicular Lesion/Neoplasm
Morphologic Criteria
The Usual Teaching
• Monolayer sheets of follicular cells – Benign
• Microfollicles – Neoplasm / Lesion
– Micro-follicular lesion
• Atypical Follicular cells – Neoplasm / Lesion
Is It That Easy
Don’t Think So
Monolayer Sheet
• Sheet of cells arranged in a layer or loosely cohesive group
• Due to presence of large follicles
– Goiter
– Papillary carcinoma
• Follicular variant
– Follicular carcinoma
Microfollicles
• Define and measure the size of follicle
Microfollicles I Don’t Think So
Microfollicles
• Inter-observer Agreement on Microfollicles – Renshaw AA et al. (Arch Pathol Lab Med 2006)
– 12 cytopathologists were shown 45 small groups of follicular cells • 20 Microfollicles
• 7 Macrofollicles
• 18 Indeterminate
– <15 cells arranged in circle that is at least two-thirds complete, should be classified as microfollicles.
Microfollicles
• Mowschenson PM et al (Surgery 1994)
• FNA of normal thyroid tissue may result in the misdiagnosis of micro-follicular lesions
– 42 cases
• 9 unremarkable
• 18 microfollicular
• 3 mixed macromicrofollicular
• 1 Hurthle cell
• 1 Papillary carcinoma
Cytomorphology: Follicular Neoplasm
Diagnosis Follicular Lesion / Neoplasm
Diagnosis Follicular Lesion / Neoplasm
The Bethesda System for Reporting Thyroid Cytopathology:
Implied Risk of Malignancy and Recommended Clinical Management
Diagnostic Category Risk of Malignancy
(%)
Usual Management
Nondiagnostic or Unsatisfactory Repeat FNA with ultrasound
guidance
Benign 0-3% Clinical follow-up
Atypia of Undetermined Significance or
Follicular Lesion of Undetermined
Significance (AUS/FLUS)
~ 5-15% Repeat FNA
Follicular Neoplasm or Suspicious for a
Follicular Neoplasm (Specify if Hurthle type
or Oncocytic)
15-30% Surgical lobectomy
Suspicious for Malignancy 60-75% Near-total thyroidectomy or
surgical lobectomy
Malignant 97-99% Near-total thyroidectomy
Follicular Lesion Histology
• Controversial Diagnosis
– Adenoma vs. Follicular carcinoma vs. Follicular variant of papillary carcinoma
– Lloyd RV et.al. AJSP 2004 (28) • A concordant diagnosis of FVPCA was made by all 10
reviewers with a cumulative frequency of 39%.
• In this series, 24.1% of the patients had metastatic disease (n = 21). In the cases with metastatic disease, a diagnosis of FVPCA was made by all 10 reviewers with a cumulative frequency of 66.7%
– Elshiekh TM et al. AJCP 2008 • 15 cases of FVPCA – unanimous agreement in 2 (13%)
Follicular Carcinoma Diagnosis
Capsular invasion only
• Associated with metastatic disease – Khan & Perzin; Evans et al
• Tumors with capsular invasion also demonstrate foci of vascular invasion on extensive sectioning of the tumor capsule – Yamashina et al
Follicular carcinoma
• Diagnosis based on invasive characteristics
– Capsular invasion
– Vascular invasion
Follicular Carcinoma Diagnosis
Capsular Invasion – Diagnosis
• Tumor cells invading into and through the capsule into the surrounding thyroid parenchyma.
Oncocytic (AKA Hurthle cell) & Follicular Carcinoma Diagnosis
Capsular Invasion – Diagnosis
• Tumor cells invade into the tumor capsule only without invasion into surrounding thyroid. – Tumor cells mushroom out into the capsule
– Tumor cell invade into a hook-like pattern, usually horizontally into the capsule.
Oncocytic (AKA Hurthle cell) & Follicular Carcinoma Diagnosis
• Vascular invasion with or without capsular invasion
– Angio-invasive Oncocytic Follicular / Follicular carcinoma
ADENOMA
MIN INV FOLL-CA
ANGIO-INV FOLL-CA
POST-FNA INV
ENCAPSULATED FOLLICULAR LESIONS
Follicular Adenoma vs. Carcinoma
Follicular Variant of Papillary Carcinoma (FVPTC)
First described by Lindsay in 1960
Chen and Rosai in 1977 • Proposed the term FVPTC • Biologic similarities to conventional Pap Ca • Follicle formation with nuclear features of Pap Ca • Capsular and/or vascular invasion (20%)
FVPTC
Diagnostically challenging cases
• Encapsulated, no invasive features
• Seen in a background of nodular goiter
• Show admixture of micro and macro follicles
• Consists of areas diagnostic of papillary carcinoma and areas that appear benign
Well-differentiated Tumor of Uncertain Malignant Potential Williams et al
Encapsulated follicular patterned lesions
• Minor nuclear changes of PTC
• Minor capsular penetration without nuclear changes of PTC
• Borderline diagnosis
• Extremely good prognosis
Well-differentiated Tumor of Uncertain Malignant Potential Williams et al
• Advantages
–Conservative treatment
• Adequate resection should be enough
• Avoidance of radioactive iodine treatment
Well-differentiated Tumor of Uncertain Malignant Potential Williams et al
Disadvantages
• Lack of commitment on the part of pathologist
• Treatment ???
– Lack of data (long term follow-up)
–Published cases which have shown distant metastasis • Khan and Perzin, Evans, Baloch & LiVolsi
FVPTC Histologic Scenarios
FVPTC Histologic Scenarios
FVPTC Histologic Scenarios
FVPTC Histologic Scenarios
Important Questions/Issues?
• Is the current management of encapsulated FVPTC too aggressive?
– Yes
• Is the diagnosis “WDTUMP” justifiable?
– ?
• Role of immunohistochemical and molecular markers in the diagnosis of PTC
Clinicopathologic Data
Modify the current management of Encapsulated FVPTC
FOLLICULAR VARIANT OF PAPILLARY CARCINOMA
• Liu et al (2006) Memorial series
• Two Types:
– Infiltrative
– Encapsulated
FOLLICULAR VARIANT OF PAPILLARY CARCINOMA
• Statistically significant differences between two types:
• Lymph node mets 65% vs 5%
• ETE 65% vs 5%
• Positive margins 50% vs 2%
• NO NONINVASIVE ENCAPSULATED TUMORS WERE AGGRESSIVE EVEN WITH JUST LOBECTOMY (11 years f/u)!!
Encapsulated FVPTC
• Memorial study (Thyroid 2009) – 43 Encapsulated classical PTC
– 63 Encapsulated FVPTC
– Median F/U 8.3 yrs
• Distant metastasis in 4 FVPTC with extensive capsular and vascular invasion.
• No recurrence in non-invasive FVPTC – 30 patients treated by lobectomy and no RAI
FVPTC F/U HUP Study (Baloch et al. Endo Practice 2010)
• 42 cases of FVPTC 1997-1978
• 25 cases with mean F/U 7.7 yrs
• 1 recurrence (4%)
– Rib metastasis after 7.3 yrs – encapsulated FVPTC no invasion.
The Quest for a Magic Marker?
The Quest for a Magic Marker?
Immunohistochemistry
Thyroid Tumor Microarray Study Coexpression and concurrent absence of expression of immunohistochemical stain panels
Co expression
Malignant
(n=37)
Benign
(n=53)
Sensitivity for
Carcinoma
Specificity for
Carcinoma
HBME+, CK19+, GAL+ 20 0 54% 100%
P16+, ERK+, RET+ 19 6 51% 89%
Concurrent Absence Sensitivity for
Benign
Specificity for
Benign
HBME-, CK19-, GAL- 0 20 38% 100%
P16-, ERK-, RET- 0 15 28% 100%
Role of Molecular Markers in The Diagnosis of Thyroid Lesions
The Challenge for Diagnostic Pathologists
Practicing Morphology in the Molecular Age
What else is available?
• Protein expression:
– Galectin-3
– proteomics
• Genetic analysis:
– Oncogene mutation analysis
• RNA Expression:
– Micro RNA
– Gene expression classifier (AfirmaTM)
What else is available?
• Protein expression:
– Galectin-3
– proteomics
• Genetic analysis:
– Oncogene mutation analysis
• RNA Expression:
– Micro RNA
– Gene expression classifier (AfirmaTM)
Nikiforov Nature Rev Endocrinol 2011 7:569
PAX8/PPARg
1-5%
PTC 70-75% of PTC
Tall cell and classic papillary
cancer
Propensity for dedifferentiation
20-40% poorly differentiated
30-40% anaplastic
Classic papillary cancer
Younger age at presentation
~20% of sporadic PTC
40-70% of radiation induced PTC
Frequent lymph node metastases
Younger age at presentation
10-20% of sporadic PTC
40-70% of radiation induced PTC
(RET/PTC3 assoc with solid variant)
Frequent lymph node metastases
Follicular variant of papillary cancer
More frequent encapsulation
FC
FC
FA
~70% Follicular CA
PAX8/PPARg
RAS HRAS, NRAS codon 61 KRAS codons 12,13
20-40%
FA
30%
40%
2-13%
More Molecular Analysis of FVPTC
• Rivera M & Ghossein RA. 2010 (Mod Pathol) – The infiltrative (un-encapsulated) tumors are more
likely to harbor BRAFT1799A (BRAFV600E) mutations, and have a higher prevalence of lymph node metastases and local recurrences.
– Encapsulated FVPTC are more likely to harbor mutations in the RAS family of oncogenes and exhibit a low recurrence rate in the absence of capsular or vascular invasion.
• Radkay et al (UPMC Group) – 78% of FVPTC showed mutation in NRAS Codon 61
Molecular Analysis of Cytology Specimens
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Follicular neoplasm Susp for malignancy FLUS
Sen
siti
vity
(%
)
Nikiforov (n=513) Cantara (n=95) Moses (n=137)
Nikiforov J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2011 96:3390; Cantara J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2010 95:1365; Moses W J Surg 2010 34:2589
Mutation panel (BRAF, RAS, RET/PTC, PAX8/PPARg):
HIGH False Negative Rate 20-40%
NOT optimal sensitivity
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Follicular neoplasm Susp for malignancy FLUS
Spec
ific
ity
(%)
Nikiforov (n=513) Cantara (n=95) Moses (n=137)
HIGH specificity
Nikiforov J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2011 96:3390; Cantara J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2010 95:1365; Moses W J Surg 2010 34:2589
Mutation panel (BRAF, RAS, RET/PTC, PAX8/PPARg):
Very Low Frequency of
Mutation Markers
in Atypia/FLUS and Follicular
Neoplasm
Very Low Frequency of Mutation Markers
in Atypia/FLUS and Follicular Neoplasm
2% 1%
19%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
8%
16% 15%
0% 0% 2% 0% 1% 2%
g
Nikiforov J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2011 96:3390
Mutation present: AUS/FLUS—10% Foll neoplasm—18%
Mutation Panel Analysis High Specificity -High Positive Predictive Value
• Confirm Malignancy
• Not to Avoid Surgery
1Yip J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2012 97:1905
What else is available?
• Protein expression:
– Galectin-3
– proteomics
• Genetic analysis:
– Oncogene mutation panels
• RNA Expression:
– Micro RNA
– Gene expression classifier (GEC - Commercial test)
Rationale for The GEC
• Development of a molecular diagnostic test with high negative predictive value
• When applied to cytologically indeterminate thyroid nodules, a benign result from this test would accurately predict a non-cancerous nodule.
Development of a gene expression classifier (GEC) to accurately identify benign thyroid nodules in patients with indeterminate FNA cytology
A multidimensional algorithm applied to the complex data set
Whole Transcriptome approach using microarray technology
Suspicious
Molecular Classifier Trained and Validated to Distinguish Benign vs.
Suspicious Nodules
Benign
Final chip 167 genes
Gene Expression Classifier
Alexander, et al. N Engl J Med 2012 367:206
Indeterminate Subtypes n=265
AUS / FLUS: Sensitivity: 90% Specificity: 53% *Negative Predictive Value: 95%
n=129 24% CANCER Positive Predictive Value: 38%
• Disagreement as the calculation of negative predictive value included cases Diagnosed by surgical pathology panel as “tumors of uncertain malignant potential”
Gene Expression Classifier
Alexander, et al. N Engl J Med 2012 367:206
Indeterminate Subtypes n=265
AUS / FLUS: Sensitivity: 90% Specificity: 53% Negative Predictive Value: 95%
n=129 24% CANCER Positive Predictive Value: 38%
Follicular Neoplasm: Sensitivity: 90% Specificity: 49%
Negative Predictive Value: 94% Positive Predictive Value: 37%
n=81 24.5% CANCER
Afirma Gene Expression Classifier
Alexander, et al. N Engl J Med 2012 367:206
Indeterminate Subtypes n=265
AUS / FLUS: Sensitivity: 90% Specificity: 53% Negative Predictive Value: 95%
n=129 24% CANCER Positive Predictive Value: 38%
Follicular Neoplasm: Sensitivity: 90% Specificity: 49%
Negative Predictive Value: 94% Positive Predictive Value: 37%
n=81 24.5% CANCER
Suspicious for Malignancy: Sensitivity: 94% Specificity: 52%
Negative Predictive Value: 85%
n=55 62% CANCER
Positive Predictive Value: 76%
Negative predictive Value Falls at higher disease prevalence
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Prevalence of malignancy
NP
V 95% Sensitivity
90% Sensitivity
80% Sensitivity
Courtesy of Bryan McIver
NPV and PPV for Afirma GEC
based upon N Engl J Med 2012 367:206
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
NP
V
Prevalence of malignancy
90% Sensitivity and 52% Specificity
NPV
PPV
0
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
PP
V
38%
94%
Courtesy of Bryan McIver
Afirma GEC in action—Mayo clinic 53 nodules with GEC results
13 (24%) BENIGN 40 (76%) SUSPICIOUS
27 surgery 13 no surgery
23 (85%) BENIGN 4 (15%) CANCER
McIver ATA abstract 2012
• Different cancer prevalence in FLUS/FN
– NEJM 25% vs. Mayo 15%
– Lower prevalence lower PPV
• Real world application may vary . . .
Afirma in action—Mayo clinic Positive predictive value Mayo 15% vs. NEJM 38%
Afirma in action – UPENN Med Ctr
Positive Predictive Value
General Category Specific Diagnosis
Malignant
(22 cases; 46%)
- FV-PTC: 16 cases (33%)
- Classic PTC: 3 cases (6%)
- Follicular carcinoma: 3 cases (6%)
Benign
(26 cases; 54%)
- Follicular adenoma: 9 cases (19%)
- Hurthle cell adenoma: 14 cases (29%)
- Adenomatoid nodule: 3 cases (6%)
Diagnosis on surgical pathology follow-up of cases with suspicious Afirma® results (n=48)
Afirma in action – UPENN Med Ctr
Positive Predictive Value
Diagnosis on surgical pathology follow-up of cases with suspicious Afirma® results (n=48)
Malignant Benign
AUS/FLUS
(n=18)
FNA x2
11 (61%) - 8 FV-PTC (72%)
- 2 Classic PTC (27%)
- 1 Follicular carcinoma (1%)
6 (39%) - 5 Follicular adenoma (28%)
- 1 Hurthle cell adenoma (6%)
- 1 Adenomatoid nodule (6%)
FN
(n=17)
9 (53%)
- 9 FV-PTC (53%)
8 (47%) - 4 Follicular adenoma (24%)
- 3 Hurthle cell adenoma (18%)
- 1 Adenomatoid nodule (5%)
FNOF
(n=13)
2 (15%)
- 2 Follicular carcinoma (15%)
11 (85%) - 10 Hurthle cell adenoma (77%)
- 1 Adenomatoid nodule (8%)
• Simultaneous parallel sequencing of thousands to millions of short nucleic acid sequences
• High sensitivity and quantitative assessment
• Large scale analyses required for discovery projects
• BUT targeted panels may be useful for molecular dx of thyroid nodules
Next-Generation Sequencing
Next-Generation Sequencing UPMC group--34 primers for amplification of targeted genomic
areas
Nikiforova J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2013;98:E1852-60
Next-Generation Sequencing UPMC group—WHOLE genome/exome/ transcriptome sequencing in
mutation negative 26 PTC and 16 FTC
Nikiforov, unpublished data World Thyroid Congress Toronto 2013
What about combining BRAF testing with the GEC?
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
AUS/FLUS Foll Neoplasm Susp for malig
Sen
siti
vity
(%
)
BRAF + GEC Susp BRAF + GEC Susp
No increase in sensitivity because all GEC false negative specimens were also BRAF negative
Kloos J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2013
Evaluation of thyroid nodules 2014
History, physical examination, TSH
Thyroid US with risk stratification for FNA
FNA cytology sample
Cytology •Benign •Malignant •Nondx
Cytology • Follicular lesion of undetermined significance • Follicular/Hürthle cell neoplasm • Suspicious for maligancy
Result reported Molecular analysis
Result reported
Personalized Management of Thyroid Nodules
The Personalized Approach to the Management of Thyroid Nodules -1
Molecular analysis with HIGH NEGATIVE
PREDICTIVE VALUE Gene expression classifier
FLUS/AUS Follicular/Hürthle cell neoplasm Cancer risk <25%
BENIGN
OBSERVE
SUSPICIOUS
LOBECTOMY
Suspicious for malignancy Cancer risk >65-70%
Molecular analysis with HIGH POSITIVE
PREDICTIVE VALUE Mutational analysis
The Personalized Approach to the Management of Thyroid Nodules -2
POSITIVE
THYRX
NEGATIVE
LOBECTOMY
My View About These Tests?
• Marketing different than reality
– Testing all or reflex
– Local cytopathologists in the driver seat vs. a centralized lab reviewing all specimens
– Cost
Conclusions Pathologist in the front seat
Diagnosis of Thyroid Tumors
Multi-modality Approach
Diagnosis of Thyroid Tumors
• Clinical presentation and radiologic findings
• Cytologic diagnosis
– Molecular analysis of selected cases
• Type of Surgery
– Lobectomy vs. Total thyroidectomy
– Lymph node excision (sampling, dissection)
• Management + Molecular analysis
– Radioactive iodine treatment Yes or no
Abu-al Qasim (936-1013 AD) Kitab al-Tasrif
He described thyroid nodules/enlargements as “this tumor, which is called Elephant of the throat, is a large tumor which commonly occurs in women and is of congenital and acquired types. The congenital type is incurable, whereas, the acquired type is of two types: one resembles sebaceous cyst and other as an arterial aneurysm which is dangerous to incise, so never apply knife to it unless the tumor is small.
Thank you for your attention