Published in

Wiley, Histopathology, 2(84), p. 325-335, 2023

DOI: 10.1111/his.15054

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Extrauterine epithelioid trophoblastic tumour and its somatic carcinoma mimics: short tandem repeat genotyping meets the diagnostic challenges

Journal article published in 2023 by Na Niu ORCID, Zehra Ordulu, Zeybek Burak, Natalia Buza ORCID, Pei Hui
This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.
This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.

Full text: Unavailable

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Orange circle
Postprint: archiving restricted
Red circle
Published version: archiving forbidden
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

AimsWhile epithelioid trophoblastic tumour (ETT) primarily arises from the uterus, cases have been increasingly documented at extrauterine sites, originating from an ectopic gestation or presenting as a metastatic tumour, leading to the major differential diagnosis of somatic carcinoma with trophoblastic differentiation. The precise separation of a gestational trophoblastic tumour from its somatic carcinoma mimics is highly relevant and crucial for patient management and prognosis.Methods and resultsWe summarise the clinicopathological and molecular features of four challenging epithelioid malignancies presenting at extrauterine sites, with ETT as the main differential diagnosis. All four tumours demonstrated histological and immunohistochemical features overlapping between a somatic carcinoma and an ETT, combined with inconclusive clinical and imaging findings. Serum beta‐hCG elevation was documented in two cases. Short tandem repeat (STR) genotyping was performed and was informative in all cases. The presence of a unique paternal allelic pattern in the tumour tissue confirmed the diagnosis of ETT in two cases with an initial consideration of either somatic carcinoma or suspicion of a gestational trophoblastic tumour. The presence of matching genetic profile with the patient's paired normal tissue was seen in two other cases (both initially considered as ETT), confirming their somatic origin, including one metastatic triple‐negative breast carcinoma and one primary lung carcinoma.ConclusionsDiagnostic separation of ETT at an extrauterine site from its somatic carcinoma mimics can be difficult at the histological and immunohistochemical levels. STR genotyping offers a robust ancillary tool that precisely separates ETT from somatic carcinomas with trophoblastic differentiation.