Pathological and molecular features of adrenocortical carcinoma: an update
M Volante,1 C Buttigliero,1 E Greco,1 A Berruti,2 M Papotti1
1 Division of Pathology, Department of Clinical & Biological Sciences, University of Turin at San Luigi Hospital, Orbassano, Torino, Italy; 2 Division of Oncology, Department of Clinical & Biological Sciences, University of Turin at San Luigi Hospital, Orbassano, Torino, Italy
Correspondence to: Dr M Papotti, Department of Clinical and Biological Sciences, University of Turin at San Luigi Hospital, Regione Gonzole 10, I-10043 Orbassano, Torino, Italy; mauro.papotti@unito.it
Accepted 4 April 2008 Published Online First 22 April 2008
ABSTRACT
The pathological diagnosis of adrenocortical carcinoma (ACC), which is based on gross and microscopic criteria, is subjective. None of the features are absolutely indicative of malignancy, although their combination in a scoring system may correctly identify ACC. The Weiss system, which is currently the most popular, combines nine morphological parameters, of which three are structural (“dark” cytoplasm, diffuse architecture, necro- sis), three are cytological (atypia, mitotic count, atypical mitotic figures) and three are related to invasion (of sinusoids, veins and tumour capsule). Although there are strictly defined criteria for each feature, some are straightforward and objective, while others are potentially more problematic (diffuse architecture, necrosis, sinusoi- dal, venous and capsular invasions). The classification of oncocytic and paediatric adrenocortical tumours is even more challenging, as not all of the above morphological parameters are predictors of malignancy in these tumour types. As an alternative to the morphological approach, a wide array of chromosomal, genetic, molecular and immunohistochemical markers have been tested in ACC to identify reliable diagnostic and prognostic factors. Genetic and epigenetic alterations of p53, IGF-2 and molecules involved in cancer cell invasive properties seem the most promising. These molecular markers may not only play a role in the biology of these tumours and have prognostic implications, but may also be used as potential targets for treatment. However, these markers are not sufficiently sensitive and specific to replace conventional morphological criteria.
Adrenocortical carcinoma (ACC) is a rare tumour of the adrenal cortex with an incidence of approximately 1 per million, affecting women more frequently than men at any age. It has a bimodal age distribution, with one peak in early childhood and another in adults over age 60. The presence of distant metastases is a relatively common occurrence at diagnosis; tumour progres- sion is observed in most cases, with a mean survival of less than three years.1-3 Combined treatment modalities, particularly mitotane-based therapy, have improved survival.4
The pathological diagnosis of ACC is difficult, due to the lack of clear-cut morphological criteria for malignant tumours.5 6 To overcome the diffi- culties of the standard microscopic evaluation, several studies have identified molecular factors having a diagnostic (and/or prognostic) signifi- cance. Data from gene array, cytogenetics, cell cycle analysis, receptor and growth factor expres- sion, and expression of invasion/metastasis mod- ulators have contributed to better defining the malignant phenotype of adrenocortical tumours,
although no marker has so far been shown to be specific and sensitive enough for a diagnosis of ACC.
This review briefly summarises the traditional morphological criteria for ACC diagnosis and the relevant molecular markers differentially expressed in benign and malignant tumours.
FROM MORPHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISATION …
Weight and size were originally the most accepted diagnostic criteria of malignancy in ACC7; their relevance has been confirmed in recent papers.8 9 Using appropriate cut-offs of weight (50 g) and size (6.5 cm), these criteria have a sensitivity and specificity of 91% and 100%, respectively, in an adult patient population.9 However, the role of size in predicting malignancy has been called into question, given the identification of smaller adrenal nodules by new imaging techniques.10-12
The differential diagnosis of carcinomas from adenomas has been based on several microscopic features, none of which is an absolute criterion of malignancy. Different scoring systems for ACC have therefore been developed, using mathematical models or numerical scores based on the associa- tion of a given threshold for each considered parameter to malignancy.13-16 Unfortunately, scor- ing systems are sometimes difficult to apply and/or time consuming; it is not therefore surprising that several attempts to simplify the diagnostic algo- rithms for ACC and provide clinically relevant information have been made over the years.9 12 17 18 Current diagnostic parameters include architec- tural and cytological data together with informa- tion on the invasive properties of the tumour. Nine of these have been combined in the Weiss system, which includes three parameters related to tumour structure (“dark” cytoplasm, diffuse architecture, necrosis), three to cytological features (atypia, mitotic count, atypical mitotic figures), and three to invasion (of sinusoids, veins and tumour capsule).15 16 In addition, other parameters have been considered relevant by other authors, includ- ing regressive changes (haemorrhage, fibrosis and calcification), abnormal nucleoli, and broad fibrous bands. 13 14
Analysis of pathological parameters
According to the literature data and our experience, some criteria are objective and reproducible (nuclear grade, mitotic count, atypical mitotic figures and non-clear cytoplasm), whereas others (diffuse architecture, necrosis, sinusoidal or venous or capsular invasion, regressive changes, abnormal nucleoli, pleomorphism and broad fibrous bands) are more difficult to apply due to their subjectivity
Demystified
(both qualitative and quantitative) and/or their dependence on tumour sampling adequacy.
Based on the original Weiss study,15 high nuclear grade is identified when grades III and IV of Fuhrman are recognised, based on oval or pleomorphic nuclear shape, size larger than 20 um, coarsely granular chromatin and prominent (macro)- nucleoli.19 Mitoses are generally screened counting 10 random fields in each of five slides. An atypical mitotic figure is any cell division having an abnormal polarisation of the condensed chromatin during the different phases of the mitotic process, or more than two mitotic spindles. Eosinophilic cytoplasm is easily described as finely granular, oxyphilic non-clear cytoplasm which must be identified in at least 75% of tumour cells.
Evaluation of the other criteria is, in our experience, less reproducible and would require the use of strict rules. For example, the presence of necrosis, pleomorphism, abnormal nucleoli or broad fibrous bands is not per se hard to recognise, but the identification of these features in small cell groups or in a limited tumour area may equivocally be scored as either present or absent. In particular, it has been suggested that necrosis is regarded as “present” when observed in confluent nests of cells, while for the remaining parameters above there is no internationally accepted definition for their assessment.5 6 The recognition of regressive changes (haemorrhage, fibrosis and calcification) was considered of high value for the diagnosis of ACC in the van Slooten system (being assessed a numerical score of 5.7 with a threshold of ≥8 for a diagnosis of malignancy) despite the difficulty of their objective evaluation.14
A particularly hard task is the assessment of diffuse architecture. This has been defined as patternless sheets of cells interrupted by a fine sinusoidal network in at least one third of tumour.6 15 A reproducible assessment of diffuse architecture requires a knowledge of what is meant by non-diffuse. Several reports have indicated that non-diffuse patterns included cell arrangements in trabeculae, cords, alveoli or nests. Because of the low threshold for a diffuse architecture (33% of tumour), and the possibility that a compact growth of cords and nests may simulate a diffuse pattern, this criterion is, in our opinion, challenging to apply and poorly reproducible, despite its inclusion in all three major scoring systems.13-15 Additional histochemical stains, such as reticulin staining, might be required to correctly assess its presence.
Finally, capsular penetration has been precisely defined as presence of cords and nests of tumour cells inducing a stromal reaction within the capsular tissues,15 but its recognition may sometimes be hampered by either the extremely limited extent of such penetration or the lack of clear cut stromal reaction. The correct classification of venous versus sinusoidal invasion is even more complicated. In endocrine pathology in particular, vascular embolisation by tumour cells is a widely accepted criterion of malignancy, and, for example, is sufficient to prompt a diagnosis of thyroid follicular carcinoma. In adreno- cortical tumours, this feature is not sensitive enough for a diagnosis of malignancy, if used alone, but has a relevance in the context of multi-parameter scoring systems. Weiss decided to consider sinusoid and venous invasion separately; an apparently clear-cut distinction between sinusoids (endothelial lined vessels with little supportive tissue) and veins (vessel wall with a smooth muscle component) was made.15 As correctly stated by McNicol in a recent commentary,20 the separation of sinusoidal from venous invasion is difficult and prone to inter- observer variability. More strictly defined rules for venous and sinusoidal invasion were proposed by Aubert et al; these will
probably be helpful to provide the appropriate evaluation of each single case.9
Paediatric tumours
Paediatric adrenocortical tumours are even rarer than their adult counterparts and usually display a less aggressive clinical behaviour. Very few studies have addressed this issue in sufficiently powered cohorts, with the AFIP series being the largest on record (n = 83).17 Nine macroscopic or microscopic parameters were found to be associated with malignant behaviour. Among the classical criteria considered in the Weiss system, only confluent necrosis, capsular or vascular invasion, presence of atypical mitotic figures and mitotic count >15/20 high power fields were significantly related to poor prognosis. Four other parameters had a relevant impact on prognosis: tumour weight >400 g, tumour size >10.5 cm, vena cava invasion and periadrenal tissue infiltration.17 From this study it can be concluded that some features important for adult ACC diagnosis (eosinophilic cytoplasm, diffuse architecture or sinusoidal invasion) were apparently less relevant in the paediatric population, indicating that the diagnostic work-up of children’s tumours should probably employ a different panel of pathological factors.
Oncocytic tumours
This term refers to rare adrenal tumours with a predominant component of large, deeply eosinophilic, mitochondrion-rich cells. Forty-five oncocytic ACCs are on record in the literature.21-23 The diagnosis of malignancy in oncocytic tumours is difficult using the traditional scoring systems.17 24 However, at least some parameters (eosinophilic cytoplasm, high nuclear grade and diffuse architecture) are intrinsically present in this tumour type.23-25 Therefore, the cut-off values validated for conventional ACC may lead to an over-diagnosis of malignancy. It has been suggested that only some of the parameters included in the Weiss system (mitotic activity, necrosis, vascular and capsular invasion) should be taken into account. However, the cut-offs for a diagnosis of malignancy remain unclear.25 Other authors indi- cated large size, capsular or vascular invasion and surgical un- resectability as features of malignancy, but did not specify the number of features to be identified.26 In a recent study on oncocytic adrenocortical tumours, malignancy was diagnosed in the presence of a “major criterion” (>5 mitoses/50 high power fields, atypical mitosis, venous invasion). Conversely, if a tumour displays only “minor criteria” of malignancy (size >10 cm, weight >200 g, necrosis, capsular or sinusoidal invasion), they are best diagnosed as “of uncertain malignant potential” or “borderline tumours”.23
Myxoid changes
Among other rare morphological features encountered in ACC, myxoid changes are noteworthy, due to the problems they pose for the differential diagnosis with other extra-adrenal myxoid lesions. Focal myxoid extracellular material, highlighted by positive Alcian blue staining, is not uncommon in adrenocor- tical benign and malignant neoplasms, although on very rare occasions it might represent the majority of the lesion, even in the absence of areas of typical ACC.27 In this context, especially in biopsy material, extra-skeletal myxoid chondrosarcoma, chordoma, myxoid carcinomas from the kidney or other sites, myxoid lipomatous or nerve sheet tumours should be enter- tained as potential differential diagnoses.
A diagnostic algorithm
Despite revisions and updates,8 9 16 the diagnostic work-up of adrenocortical tumours is still time consuming and poorly reproducible. A better understanding of the “weight” of individual parameters is probably required. In this respect, it is interesting to note that the vast majority of published studies on ACC diagnostic criteria found mitotic count to be the most relevant parameter for a diagnosis of malignancy (table 1).
Nevertheless, it was not until 2007 that a study suggested selecting malignant cases through a diagnostic algorithm centred on mitotic count (>5/50 high power fields), followed by the recognition of other parameters (including nuclear grade, diffuse growth pattern and tissue reaction).28 A comparison with the other known scoring systems indicated that a stepwise procedure was the most specific, while the pathological scores proposed in the Weiss and van Slooten systems were the most sensitive for ACC diagnosis. Although this proposal was derived from statistical analysis of relatively few malignant cases, the advantage of this method is to simplify the use of all known diagnostic features, therefore reducing the inter-observer varia- bility in the evaluation of individual criteria.
Morphological versus clinical malignancy
A major issue is the distinction between morphologically and clinically malignant adrenocortical tumours. The diagnostic significance of current pathological parameters has been confirmed by the malignant behaviour of ACCs. Interestingly, some of them have been shown to have prognostic signifi- cance.29 30 In a recent report by Assie et al on 124 metastatic cases,31 the importance of mitotic index and the presence of atypical mitotic figures as factors significantly correlated with malignant behaviour and survival was stressed. As described above, in paediatric adrenocortical neoplasms, necrosis, capsular or vascular invasion, presence of atypical mitotic figures and mitotic count >15/20 high power fields were significantly related to poor prognosis, together with tumour weight >400 g, tumour size >10.5 cm, vena cava invasion and peri-adrenal tissue infiltration.17
Immunophenotype and differential diagnosis between ACC and other adrenal and extra-adrenal lesions
Immunohistochemistry is generally not relevant in routine diagnosis to distinguish benign from malignant adrenocortical tumours, despite some proposed markers that are discussed later. However, the differential diagnosis between ACC and other adrenal and extra-adrenal tumours showing similar morphological features, including phaeochromocytomas/para- gangliomas, renal cell and hepatocellular carcinomas and metastatic tumours, should be considered. Alpha-inhibin and melan A antibodies are the most sensitive markers for determination of the adrenocortical origin of ACC, although they are not highly specific. Compared to other types of carcinoma, ACC is usually negative or only focally positive for different types of cytokeratins and EMA. Negative staining for CD10 and anti-hepatocyte antigen militates against a renal and liver neoplasm, respectively. Positivity for neuroendocrine markers is restricted to synaptophysin, whereas chromogranin A is invariably negative, a feature that helps in the differential diagnosis with phaeochromocytoma.
… TO MOLECULAR CHARACTERISATION
In recent years, molecular characterisation of adrenocortical tumours has provided a wealth of data, some of which has
already been translated to the diagnostic pathology armamen- tarium. In order to identify reliable diagnostic and prognostic factors, a wide array of genetic, molecular and immunohisto- chemical markers have been tested, the most relevant of which are summarised below and in fig 1.
Chromosomal aberrations and allelic imbalance
Several studies have shown that genomic alterations are more prevalent in malignant than in benign and hyperplastic adrenocortical lesions. Numerical chromosomal aberrations (gains, losses and amplifications) can be detected with chromosomal or microarray based comparative genomic hybri- disation (CGH) and loss of heterozygosity/allelic imbalances with allelotyping techniques.6 The most common gains in ACC are reported to affect chromosomes 4, 5, 12 and 19, while losses are often found on chromosomes 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 18, 22 and X.6 32 An aneuploid DNA pattern has often been associated with such chromosomal imbalances, although the value of DNA ploidy analysis is limited for both diagnostic and prognostic purposes.33 34 Kjellman et al35 found a strong relation- ship between the number of genetic aberrations detected using CGH and tumour size. No alterations were seen in adenomas smaller than 5 cm, whereas an increased number of genetic alterations in the two largest adenomas (5 cm each) and seven of the eight cancers (7-20 cm) were detected.
Extensive genomic imbalances were encountered in ACC by comparative genomic hybridisation, indicating that the mole- cular pathogenesis of sporadic tumours is complex and that multiple genetic changes drive malignant transformation and tumour progression. A role of tumour suppressor gene(s) (TP53, HIC1, ABL) inactivation on chromosome 17p has been recognised as an early event.32 36
Alterations of genes involved in inherited cancer syndromes
The majority of ACC are sporadic; however a link between ACC and familial cancer syndromes, including the autosomal dominant Li-Fraumeni and Beckwith-Wiedemann syndromes, has been reported.
In Li-Fraumeni syndrome, patients may develop ACC and also a number of other neoplasias, including sarcomas, breast cancer, brain tumours, leukaemia and lymphoma, as a result of germline mutations of TP53 gene and subsequent loss of heterozygosity (LOH) at 17p13.1 locus.37-39 Common mutations include sub- stitution of Arg to His at codon 175 (which codes for amino acids of the protein binding site to DNA), and Arg to His at codon 337 (R337H) (coding for the protein oligomerisation domain) observed in children of southern Brazil, where the incidence of ACC is 10-15 times higher than in the rest of the world.40 41 Somatic mutations of TP53 gene, as seen in Li-Fraumeni syndrome, as well as p53 protein accumulation can be detected in sporadic ACC and have been considered as marker of malignancy. 42-4
In Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome, various developmental abnormalities can be associated with paediatric tumours, including ACC, as the result of 11p15.5 chromosomal region alterations; several relevant genes may be involved, including IGF2, CDKN1C and H19.45 IGF2 gene is normally expressed from the paternal allele only, while the maternal one is imprinted by promoter methylation. The loss of maternal imprinting or paternal isodisomy induce over-expression of IGF-2, a hormone predominantly expressed during fetal life, which binds to IGFR1 and leads to cell proliferation, differ- entiation and survival.46 47 IGF2 gene alterations have been described in both familial Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome and
Table 1 Summary of clinicopathological parameters analysed and found of relevance in the diagnosis of adrenocortical carcinoma
| Reference | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tang' | Hough 13 | Van Sloten14 | Weiss 15 | Weiss16 | Evans2 | Harrison® | Aubert® | Stojadinovic11 | Wieneke17 | Tauchmanova2 | Assie28 | Bisceglia23 | Blanes27 | |
| Number of malignant cases analysed | 23 | 16 | 42 | 24 | 42 | 48 | 46 | 24 | 67 | 83 | 22 | 84 - mts | 4 oncocytic* | 32 |
| Pathological features | ||||||||||||||
| Non-clear cytoplasm | x | x | x | 2x | x | (x) | x | x | x | |||||
| Diffuse architecture | x | x | x | x | (x) | x | (x) | x | x | x | ||||
| Necrosis | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | |||
| Nuclear atypia | x | x | x | x | x | (x) | x | (x) | x | x | x | x | ||
| Mitotic index | x | x | x | x | x | 2x | x | x | x | x | x | x | ||
| Atypical mitoses | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | ||||||
| Sinusoid invasion | x | x | x | (x) | x | (x) | x | x | ||||||
| Venous invasion | x | x | x | x | x | (x) | x | x | x | x | x | |||
| Capsular invasion | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | |||
| Loss normal structure | x | |||||||||||||
| Regressive changes | x haem | x haem | x calcif | x haem | ||||||||||
| Abnormal nucleoli | x | x | x | |||||||||||
| Nuclear hyperchromasia | x | x | x | |||||||||||
| Broad fibrous bands | x | x | x | |||||||||||
| Surgical margins | x | |||||||||||||
| Extra-adrenal invasion | x | x | x | |||||||||||
| Inflammation | x | |||||||||||||
| Size | x | x | x | x | x | |||||||||
| Weight | x | x | x | x | x | |||||||||
| Myxoid changes | x | x (+ | ||||||||||||
| desmopl) | ||||||||||||||
| Pseudoinclusions | x | |||||||||||||
| Peritumoral cortex | x | |||||||||||||
| Nuclear/cytoplasmic ratio | x | |||||||||||||
| Clinical signs | ||||||||||||||
| Age | x | |||||||||||||
| Hormonal signs | x | x | ||||||||||||
| Weight loss | x | |||||||||||||
| Response to ACTH | x | |||||||||||||
| Urine 17-ketosteroids | x | |||||||||||||
| Mts at diagnosis | x | |||||||||||||
| Total no. parameters | (2) | (12) | (8) | (9) | (9) | (7) | (15) | (9) | (12) | (16) | (2) | (11) | (11) | (11) |
Parameters marked with x (in bold) were significantly associated with malignant behaviour or worse prognosis, or correlated with survival.
*An additional 4 borderline cases were analysed.
Mts, metastases; haem, haemorrhage; calcify, calcifications; desmopl, desmoplastic reaction.
Candidate gene(s): SKP2 (5p13)
Candidate gene(s): MDM2, CDK4, SAS (12q13-q21)
Gains
4
5
12
19
Genes and chromosomes
2p 2q
1p
6p
9p
11q
11p15
17p 17q
22
X
Lossess
Uniparental isodisomy
Candidate gene(s): p73 (1p36)
Candidate gene(s): p16 (9p21)
Candidate gene(s): MEN (11q13)
Candidate gene(s):
p53 (17p13.1)
involved gene(s): IGF-2, H19, CDKNIC (p57)
HIC1, CRK, ABR (17p13.3)
Candidate gene(s): PRKAIA (17q22-24)
(11p15)
USP4 (3p21.3)
IGF2-R (6q26)
IGFBP3 Angiopoietin 2 R (7p13- (8p23) p12)
CDK4, SAS (12q13-q21)
IGF-2 (11p15)
IGFBP6 (12q13)
Topoll alpha (17q21)
STK15 (19p13.1- SPP p12)
UFDIL (22q11.2)
(20q11)
Up-regulation
FGFR-4 (5q35- qter)
Messenger RNA
Down-regulation
HSD3B2 (11p13.1)
H19, CDKNIC (p57), KCNQIOTI (11p15)
VEGF (6p12)
EGF-R (7p12)
IGF-2 (11p15)
IGF-1 (12q22-q23)
MMP-2 (16q13-q21)
Topoll alpha (17q21)
Osteopontin (20q11)
Over-expression
Proteins
Reduced expression
p21 (6p21)
p16 (9p21)
p57 (11p15)
p53 (17p13.1)
sporadic ACC cases, with a 100-fold IGF-2 over-expression in 60-90% of carcinomas.48 49 Concurrent changes in other genes at 11p15 locus (TP57 and H19) are likely key contributors to ACC development, as suggested by the high prognostic value of 11p15 LOH in ACC.50
Other inherited cancer syndromes associated with adreno- cortical tumours (more often adenomas than carcinomas) are multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 (MEN1), whose locus (11q13) is commonly lost in sporadic adrenal tumours (up to 100% in ACC), although MEN1 gene mutations are extremely rare,51-53 and Gardner’s syndrome caused by inactivating mutations of APC gene (on chromosome 5q21), which may be responsible for altered WNT pathways observed in ACC.54
Other genetic and epigenetic abnormalities
LOH at 9p21 associated with lack of p16 protein (a cyclin kinase inhibitor) expression has been found in a fraction of ACCs but
not adenomas.55 The role of the zinc finger transcription factors GATA-4 and GATA-6 has been extensively investigated in human cancer tumourigenesis. These factors bind to consensus DNA sequences (A/T)GATA(A/G) in gene promoters and enhancers, and are usually over-expressed (GATA-4) or reduced (GATA-6) in tumour cells. A functional link between luteinising hormone receptor (LHR) and GATA-4 effects in the adrenal pathophysiology has been proposed, and altered up-regulation of LHR and GATA-4 and down-regulation of GATA-6 have been described in ACC.56 57
Gene expression profile
In the few reported studies which applied gene microarray technology, different gene expression profiles between adenomas and ACCs have consistently been found. IGF2 gene up-regulation is one of the most specific molecular features of ACC,49 58 59 a feature which correlates with the altered imprinting of IGF2
Demystified
locus as outlined above. Among other genes differentially expressed between adrenocortical adenomas and carcinomas, osteopontin (SPP) and serine threonine kinase (STK) 15 were significantly up-regulated in the latter group.49 A gene expression profile similar to adult ACC cases was found in paediatric adrenocortical tumours.60 Moreover, de Fraipont et al showed that 14 genes are strongly associated with tumour recurrence and aggressive behaviour.58
Protein markers
The proliferative activity, as detected by Ki67 labelling index, is considered a relevant marker of malignancy in adrenocortical tumours, with a cut-off value between adenomas and ACCs varying from 1.5% to 4%, according to different authors.9 11 12 24 61-63 Among other immunohistochemical mar- kers, the cyclin kinase inhibitor p21 as well as the epidermal growth factor receptor have been found to be over-expressed in ACC.12 64-66 Unfortunately, appropriate cut-off expression levels in benign and malignant conditions have not been reported for these markers, thus limiting their use in the routine diagnostic work-up of adrenocortical tumours.
Other less common markers tested in ACC include insulin growth factors (IGF-1 and IGF-2), vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), gelatinase, matrix metalloproteinase (MMP) and others. IGF-1 and IGF-2 have been found by immunohisto- chemistry to be over-expressed in malignant tumours.63 67 By in situ hybridisation, gelatinase A (MMP-2) mRNA was found to be over-expressed in stromal cells (but not in tumour cells) of ACC, but not adenomas.68 Conversely, MMP-2 serum levels were not significantly different in the two tumour types (as opposed to high VEGF and MMP-3 levels in patients with ACC).69 70 A peculiar MMP-2 protein expression in ACC cells (but not in adenomas) has been recently reported as a useful adjunct for ACC diagnosis and a predictive factor of unfavour- able clinical evolution.71
Finally, up-regulation of topoisomerase II alpha, down- regulation of N-cadherin and increased telomerase activity have been preferentially reported in malignant adrenocortical tumours. 43 72-74
… AND BACK TO MORPHOLOGY
Molecular analysis has had a significant impact on the under- standing of pathogenetic mechanisms of ACC development and the evaluation of prognostic and predictive markers. Unfortunately, no marker so far described has proven to be sufficiently sensitive and specific to be added to or to replace current morphological parameters used to diagnose ACC. The molecular classification of ACC is certainly an issue of paramount importance, in particular if individualised treatment for patients with ACC is to be achieved.75 Notwithstanding the developments in the field, ACCs remain diagnosed based on morphological criteria and these should still be used for any further analysis and treatment strategy. In fact, the morpho- logical criteria briefly outlined above still have a major role in the diagnosis of ACC. From a practical point of view, the Weiss system is still the easiest to use and the most popular. Nevertheless routine use of at least some of these criteria is not trivial and the need of a more objective system should be the way forward. Such an approach is of very limited applicability in pre-surgical samples, in spite of the increasing use of needle biopsies in the diagnosis of adrenal masses.
We anticipate that new studies to further simplify the diagnostic algorithm for ACC, focusing on reliable individual
Take-home messages
Adrenocortical carcinoma (ACC) is a rare and aggressive tumour, with a mean survival of less than 3 years.
Its pathological diagnosis is difficult, due to the lack of clear- cut morphological criteria for malignancy; scoring systems have been proposed, although some of the proposed criteria are not straightforward and there is a need for standardisation and simplification.
Data generated from molecular characterisation have an impact in understanding pathogenetic mechanisms of ACC development and also in evaluating prognostic parameters of relevance for therapeutic purposes. Unfortunately, no marker so far described has proved sensitive and specific enough to be added to or to replace the morphological parameters currently used to diagnose ACC.
parameters (mitotic count) should be performed. The ultimate goal of this exercise should be less cumbersome, more objective and accurate methods for the diagnosis of ACC. This would undoubtedly be of great benefit for the design of studies to unravel not only the pathogenesis and the molecular features of adrenocortical tumours, but also to identify novel therapeutic approaches for patients with this aggressive disease.
Funding: This work was partially supported by grants from the Italian Ministry of University and Research (MIUR, Rome, ex 60% to MP and MV) and from the Regione Piemonte (Progetto Ricerca Sanitaria Finalizzata, D.G.R. n. 35-4231, 06.11.2006 to MV).
Competing interests: None.
REFERENCES
1. Paton BL, Novitsky YW, Zerey M, et al. Outcomes of adrenal cortical carcinoma in the United States. Surgery 2006;140:914-20.
2. Fulmer BR. Diagnosis and management of adrenal cortical carcinoma. Curr Urol Rep 2007;8:77-82.
3. . Kirschner LS. Emerging treatment strategies for adrenocortical carcinoma: a new hope. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2006;91:14-21.
4. Terzolo M, Angeli A, Fassnacht M, et al. Adjuvant mitotane treatment for adrenocortical carcinoma. N Engl J Med 2007;356:2372-80.
5. McNicol AM. The adrenal cortex. In: LiVolsi VA, Asa SL, eds. Endocrine pathology. Philadelphia, PA: Churchill Livingstone, 2002:171-204.
6. Weiss LM, Bertagna X, Chrousos GP, et al. Adrenal cortical carcinoma. In: DeLellis RA, Lloyd RV, Heitz PU, eds. World Health Organization classification of tumors, pathology and genetics. Tumors of endocrine organs. Lyon: IARC Press, 2004:139-42.
7. Tang CK, Gray GF. Adrenocortical neoplasms. Prognosis and morphology. Urology 1975;5:691-5.
8. Harrison LE, Gaudin PB, Brennan MF. Pathologic features of prognostic significance for adrenocortical carcinoma after curative resection. Arch Surg 1999;134:181-5.
9. Aubert S, Wacrenier A, Leroy X, et al. Weiss system revisited: a clinicopathologic and immunohistochemical study of 49 adrenocortical tumors. Am J Surg Pathol 2002;26:1612-9.
10. Barnett CC Jr, Varma DG, El-Naggar AK, et al. Limitations of size as a criterion in the evaluation of adrenal tumors. Surgery 2000;128:973-82.
11. Stojadinovic A, Ghossein RA, Hoos A, et al. Adrenocortical carcinoma: clinical, morphologic, and molecular characterization. J Clin Oncol 2002;20:941-50.
12. Stojadinovic A, Brennan MF, Hoos A, et al. Adrenocortical adenoma and carcinoma: histopathological and molecular comparative analysis. Mod Pathol 2003;16:742-51.
13. Hough AJ, Hollifield JW, Page DL, et al. Prognostic factors in adrenal cortical tumors. A mathematical analysis of clinical and morphologic data. Am J Clin Pathol 1979;72:390-9.
14. van Slooten H, Schaberg A, Smeenk D, et al. Morphologic characteristics of benign and malignant adrenocortical tumors. Cancer 1985;55:766-73.
15. Weiss LM. Comparative histologic study of 43 metastasizing and nonmetastasizing adrenocortical tumors. Am J Surg Pathol 1984;8:163-9.
16. Weiss LM, Medeiros LJ, Vickery AL Jr. Pathologic features of prognostic significance in adrenocortical carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 1989;13:202-6.
17. Wieneke JA, Thompson LD, Heffess CS. Adrenal cortical neoplasms in the pediatric population: a clinicopathologic and immunophenotypic analysis of 83 patients. Am J Surg Pathol 2003;27:867-81.
18. Aiba M, Fujibayashi M. Histopathological diagnosis and prognostic factors in adrenocortical carcinoma. Endocr Pathol 2005;16:13-22.
19. Fuhrman SA, Lasky LC, Limas C. Prognostic significance of morphologic parameters in renal cell carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 1982;6:655-63.
20. McNicol AM. Assessment of malignancy in adrenal cortical tumors. Endocr Pathol 2006;17:131-6.
21. Kakimoto S, Yushita Y, Sanefuji T, et al. Non-hormonal adrenocortical adenoma with oncocytoma-like appearances. Hinyokika Kiyo 1986;32:757-63.
22. Sasano H, Suzuki T, Sano T, et al. Adrenocortical oncocytoma. A true nonfunctioning adrenocortical tumor. Am J Surg Pathol 1991;15:949-56.
23. Bisceglia M, Ludovico O, Di Mattia A, et al. Adrenocortical oncocytic tumors: report of 10 cases and review of the literature. Int J Surg Pathol 2004;12:231-43.
24. Sasano H, Suzuki T, Moriya T. Recent advances in histopathology and
immunohistochemistry of adrenocortical carcinoma. Endocr Pathol 2006;17:345-54.
25. Lin BT, Bonsib SM, Mierau GW, et al. Oncocytic adrenocortical neoplasms: a report of seven cases and review of the literature. Am J Surg Pathol 1998;22:603-14.
26. Hoang MP, Ayala AG, Albores-Saavedra J. Oncocytic adrenocortical carcinoma: a morphologic, immunohistochemical and ultrastructural study of four cases. Mod Pathol 2002;15:973-8.
27. Karim RZ, Wills EJ, McCarthy SW, et al. Myxoid variant of adrenocortical carcinoma: report of a unique case. Pathol Int 2006;56:89-94.
28. Blanes A, Diaz-Cano SJ. Histologic criteria for adrenocortical proliferative lesions: value of mitotic figure variability. Am J Clin Pathol 2007;127:398-408
29. Evans HL, Vassilopoulou-Sellin R. Adrenal cortical neoplasms. A study of 56 cases. Am J Clin Pathol 1996;105:76-86.
30. Tauchmanovà L, Colao A, Marzano LA, et al. Andrenocortical carcinomas: twelve- year prospective experience. World J Surg 2004;28:896-903.
31. Assie G, Antoni G, Tissier F, et al. Prognostic parameters of metastatic adrenocortical carcinoma. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2007;92:148-54.
32. Sidhu S, Marsh DJ, Theodosopoulos G, et al. Comparative genomic hybridization analysis of adrenocortical tumors. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2002;87:3467-74.
33. Cibas ES, Medeiros LJ, Weinberg DS, et al. Cellular DNA profiles of benign and malignant adrenocortical tumors. Am J Surg Pathol 1990;14:948-55.
34. Medeiros LJ, Weiss LM. New developments in the pathologic diagnosis of adrenal cortical neoplasms. A review. Am J Clin Pathol 1992;97:73-83.
35. Kjellman M, Kallioniemi OP, Karhu R, et al. Genetic aberrations in adrenocortical tumors detected using comparative genomic hybridization correlate with tumor size and malignancy. Cancer Res 1996;56:4219-23.
36. Zhao J, Speel EJ, Muletta-Feurer S, et al. Analysis of genomic alterations in sporadic adrenocortical lesions. Gain of chromosome 17 is an early event in adrenocortical tumorigenesis. Am J Pathol 1999;155:1039-45.
37. Sutter JA, Grimberg A. Adrenocortical tumors and hyperplasias in childhood- etiology, genetics, clinical presentation and therapy. Pediatr Endocrinol Rev 2006;4:32-9.
38. Ljungman M. Dial 9-1-1 for p53: mechanisms of p53 activation by cellular stress. Neoplasia 2000;2:208-25.
39. Malkin D. The role of p53 in human cancer. J Neurooncol 2001;51:231-43.
40. Ribeiro RC, Sandrini F, Figueiredo B, et al. An inherited p53 mutation that contributes in a tissue-specific manner to pediatric adrenal cortical carcinoma. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2001;98:9330-5.
41. DiGiammarino EL, Lee AS, Cadwell C, et al. A novel mechanism of tumorigenesis involving pH-dependent destabilization of a mutant p53 tetramer. Nat Struct Biol 2002;9:12-6.
42. Miyamoto H, Kubota Y, Shuin T, et al. Bilateral adrenocortical carcinoma showing loss of heterozygosity at the p53 and RB gene loci. Cancer Genet Cytogenet 1996;88:181-3.
43. Gupta D, Shidham V, Holden J, et al. Value of topoisomerase II alpha, MIB-1, p53, E- cadherin, retinoblastoma gene protein product, and HER-2/neu immunohistochemical expression for the prediction of biologic behavior in adrenocortical neoplasms. App/ Immunohistochem Mol Morphol 2001;9:215-21.
44. Pinto EM, Billerbeck AE, Fragoso MC, et al. Deletion mapping of chromosome 17 in benign and malignant adrenocortical tumors associated with the Arg337His mutation of the p53 tumor suppressor protein. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2005;90:2976-81.
45. Sparago A, Cerrato F, Vernucci M, et al. Microdeletions in the human H19 DMR result in loss of IGF2 imprinting and Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome. Nat Genet 2004;36:958-60.
46. Grimberg A, Cohen P. Role of insulin-like growth factors and their binding proteins in growth control and carcinogenesis. J Cell Physiol 2000;183:1-9.
47. Grimberg A. p53 and IGFBP-3: apoptosis and cancer protection. Mol Genet Metab 2000;70:85-98.
48. Gicquel C, Raffin-Sanson ML, Gaston V, et al. Structural and functional abnormalities at 11p15 are associated with the malignant phenotype in sporadic adrenocortical tumors: study on a series of 82 tumors. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1997;82:2559-65.
49. Giordano TJ, Thomas DG, Kuick R, et al. Distinct transcriptional profiles of adrenocortical tumors uncovered by DNA microarray analysis. Am J Pathol 2003;162:521-31.
50. Gicquel C, Bertagna X, Gaston V, et al. Molecular markers and long-term recurrences in a large cohort of patients with sporadic adrenocortical tumors. Cancer Res 2001;61:6762-7.
51. Görtz B, Roth J, Speel EJ, et al. MEN1 gene mutation analysis of sporadic adrenocortical lesions. Int J Cancer 1999;80:373-9.
52. Heppner C, Reincke M, Agarwal SK, et al. MEN1 gene analysis in sporadic adrenocortical neoplasms. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1999;84:216-9.
53. Kjellman M, Roshani L, Teh BT, et al. Genotyping of adrenocortical tumors: very frequent deletions of the MEN1 locus in 11q13 and of a 1-centimorgan region in 2p16. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1999;84:730-5.
54. Tissier F, Cavard C, Groussin L, et al. Mutations of beta-catenin in adrenocortical tumors: activation of the Wnt signaling pathway is a frequent event in both benign and malignant adrenocortical tumors. Cancer Res 2005;65:7622-7.
55. Pilon C, Pistorello M, Moscon A, et al. Inactivation of the p16 tumor suppressor gene in adrenocortical tumors. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1999;84:2776-9.
56. Parviainen H, Kiiveri S, Bielinska M, et al. GATA transcription factors in adrenal development and tumors. Mol Cell Endocrinol 2007;265-6:17-22.
57. Vuorenoja S, Rivero-Muller A, Kiiveri S, et al. Adrenocortical tumorigenesis, luteinizing hormone receptor and transcription factors GATA-4 and GATA-6. Mol Cell Endocrinol 2007;269:38-45.
58. deFraipont F, El Atifi M, Cherradi N, et al. Gene expression profiling of human adrenocortical tumors using complementary deoxyribonucleic acid microarrays identifies several candidate genes as markers of malignancy. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2005;90:1819-29.
59. Velázquez-Fernández D, Laurell C, Geli J, et al. Expression profiling of adrenocortical neoplasms suggests a molecular signature of malignancy. Surgery 2005;138:1087-94.
60. West AN, Neale GA, Pounds S, et al. Gene expression profiling of childhood adrenocortical tumors. Cancer Res 2007;67:600-8.
61. Goldblum JR, Shannon R, Kaldjian EP, et al. Immunohistochemical assessment of proliferative activity in adrenocortical neoplasms. Mod Pathol 1993;6:663-8.
62. Terzolo M, Boccuzzi A, Bovio S, et al. Immunohistochemical assessment of Ki-67 in the differential diagnosis of adrenocortical tumors. Urology 2001;57:176-82.
63. Schmitt A, Saremaslani P, Schmid S, et al. IGFII and MIB1 immunohistochemistry is helpful for the differentiation of benign from malignant adrenocortical tumours. Histopathology 2006;49:298-307.
64. Kamio T, Shigematsu K, Sou H, et al. Immunohistochemical expression of epidermal growth factor receptors in human adrenocortical carcinoma. Hum Pathol 1990;21:277-82.
65. Edgren M, Eriksson B, Wilander E, et al. Biological characteristics of adrenocortical carcinoma: a study of p53, IGF, EGF-r, Ki-67 and PCNA in 17 adrenocortical carcinomas. Anticancer Res 1997;17:1303-9.
66. Kiiveri S, Liu J, Arola J, et al. Transcription factors GATA-6, SF-1, and cell proliferation in human adrenocortical tumors. Mol Cell Endocrinol 2005;233:47-56.
67. Kamio T, Shigematsu K, Kawai K, et al. Immunoreactivity and receptor expression of insulinlike growth factor I and insulin in human adrenal tumors. An immunohistochemical study of 94 cases. Am J Pathol 1991;138:83-91.
68. Kjellman M, Enberg U, Hoog A, et al. Gelatinase A and membrane-type 1 matrix metalloproteinase mRNA: expressed in adrenocortical cancers but not in adenomas. World J Surg 1999;23:237-42.
69. Kolomecki K, Stepien H, Bartos M, et al. Usefulness of VEGF, MMP-2, MMP-3 and TIMP-2 serum level evaluation in patients with adrenal tumours. Endocr Regul 2001;35:9-16.
70. Zacharieva S, Atanassova I, Orbetzova M, et al. Circulating vascular endothelial growth factor and active renin concentrations and prostaglandin E2 urinary excretion in patients with adrenal tumours. Eur J Endocrinol 2004;150:345-9.
71. Volante M, Sperone P, Bollito E, et al. Matrix metalloproteinase type 2 expression in malignant adrenocortical tumors: diagnostic and prognostic significance in a series of 50 adrenocortical carcinomas. Mod Pathol 2006;19:1563-9.
72. Iino K, Sasano H, Yabuki N, et al. DNA topoisomerase II alpha and Ki-67 in human adrenocortical neoplasms: a possible marker of differentiation between adenomas and carcinomas. Mod Pathol 1997;10:901-7.
73. Kinoshita H, Ogawa O, Mishina M, et al. Telomerase activity in adrenal cortical tumors and pheochromocytomas with reference to clinicopathologic features. Urol Res 1998;26:29-32.
74. Mannelli M, Gelmini S, Arnaldi G, et al. Telomerase activity is significantly enhanced in malignant adrenocortical tumors in comparison to benign adrenocortical adenomas. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2000;85:468-70.
75. Giordano TJ. Molecular pathology of adrenal cortical tumors: separating adenomas from carcinomas. Endocr Pathol 2006;17:355-63.
JCP
Pathological and molecular features of adrenocortical carcinoma: an update
M Volante, C Buttigliero, E Greco, A Berruti and M Papotti J Clin Pathol 2008 61: 787-793 originally published online April 22, 2008 doi: 10.1136/jcp.2007.050625
Updated information and services can be found at: http://jcp.bmj.com/content/61/7/787
These include:
References
This article cites 73 articles, 9 of which you can access for free at: http://jcp.bmj.com/content/61/7/787#BIBL
Email alerting service
Receive free email alerts when new articles cite this article. Sign up in the box at the top right corner of the online article.
Topic Collections
Articles on similar topics can be found in the following collections Endocrine cancer (79) Paediatric oncology (110) Breast cancer (468)
Notes
To request permissions go to: http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions
To order reprints go to: http://journals.bmj.com/cgi/reprintform
To subscribe to BMJ go to: http://group.bmj.com/subscribe/