This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 91/3/1150    most recent Author Manuscript (PDF) Submit a related Letter to the Editor Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Copyright Permission Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Blanes, A. Articles by Diaz-Cano, S. J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Blanes, A. Articles by Diaz-Cano, S. J. Related Collections Adrenal and Hypertension Endocrine Oncology

Topographic Molecular Profile of Pheochromocytomas: Role of Somatic Down-Regulation of Mismatch Repair

Department of Pathology, University of Malaga School of Medicine (A.B., J.J.S.-C., S.J.D.-C.), Malaga E29010, Spain; and Department of Pathology, King’s College Hospital and King’s College School of Medicine (S.J.D.-C.), London SE5 9RS, United Kingdom

Address all correspondence and requests for reprints to: Dr. Salvador J. Diaz-Cano, Department of Histopathology, King’s College Hospital, Denmark Hill, London SE5 9RS, United Kingdom. E-mail: salvador.diaz-cano{at}kcl.ac.uk.

Context and Objective: Despite extensive molecular investigation of adrenal pheochromocytomas, no information is available on their molecular and mismatch repair (MMR) profiles by topographic compartments.

Design and Setting: Microdissected samples from the peripheral and internal zones of 143 pheochromocytomas from a referral hospital (95 sporadic and 48 associated with multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2A) were selected for loss of heterozygosity and single nucleotide polymorphism analyses. Five polymorphic DNA regions from TP53, RB1, WT1, and NF1 were systematically studied by PCR-denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis.

Patients, Outcome Measures, and Interventions: Pheochromocytomas were classified as malignant (16 sporadic tumors with distant metastases), locally invasive (30 sporadic tumors showing retroperitoneal infiltration only), and benign (all remaining tumors). Statistical differences were evaluated using Fisher’s exact test. MMR was assessed by MLH1/MSH2 sequencing and immunostaining in pheochromocytomas with two or more abnormal microsatellites. No interventions were performed in this study.

Results: Loss of heterozygosity/single nucleotide polymorphism involved TP53 in 40 of 134 informative cases (29.9%), RB1 in 22 of 106 informative cases (20.8%), WT1 in 32 of 120 informative cases (26.7%), and NF1 in 32 of 80 informative cases (40.0%). More genetic abnormalities involving the peripheral compartment were revealed in 34 pheochromocytomas (23.8%): 12 of 16 malignant, 10 of 30 locally invasive, and 12 of 97 benign. Multiple and coexistent genetic abnormalities characterized malignant pheochromocytomas (P < 0.001), whereas locally invasive pheochromocytomas showed a significantly higher incidence of NF1 alterations (P < 0.001). No mutations were identified in MLH1/MSH2, but MMR proteins significantly decreased in peripheral compartments.

Conclusions: Multiple microsatellite alterations and topographic intratumor heterogeneity characterize malignant pheochromocytomas, suggesting a multistep tumorigenesis through somatic topographic down-regulation of MMR proteins. Locally invasive pheochromocytomas reveal topographic heterogeneity and single-locus microsatellite alterations, especially involving NF1.