LCNEC arising from the endometrium are rarer than those arising from the cervix and ovaries [4-14]. Based on published reports in English, the neoplasms are either “pure” LCNEC or admixed with other histologic components [5-16]. Among other histologic components of endometrial LCNEC, endometrioid carcinoma is the most common histologic type, followed by serous carcinoma. Based on prior reports and the findings of our cases, the most common clinical symptoms were postmenopausal or peri-menopausal vaginal bleeding and/or abnormal vaginal discharge [5-16]. In current cases, the patients presented within the average age range and exhibited typical clinical presentations of the endometrial LCNEC.
When the tumor is poorly differentiated with morphologic suggestion of neuroendocrine differentiation, the IHC with neuroendocrine markers are deemed as the most useful method for diagnosing NEC. The most common markers used in this setting include SYN, CGA, and CD56. In our study, at least 2 out of 3 neuroendocrine markers are positive in at least 10% of the tumor cells. SYN was the most commonly expressed neuroendocrine marker, followed by CGA and CD56. However, neuroendocrine markers, especially positive CD56 expression is relatively common in endometrial cancers even without classic neuroendocrine histology [17]. Combined with morphological features, we would like to emphasize that at least 2 NE marker should be reactive in >10% of tumor cells as the diagnostic criteria of NEC.
In many situations, the endometrial NECs occur in association with a more typical form of endometrioid carcinoma [4]. The adenocarcinoma components were also low-grade endometrioid carcinoma in our cases. Hence, compared with the conventional adenocarcinoma components, the NEC was dominant in all these cases. It has been indicated that NEC originates from NE cells of the endometrium and may result from “divergent differentiation” [5]. Yasuoka et al. [18] found that both cervical adenocarcinoma and NEC showed identical clonality by using an X-chromosome clonality assay. Such observation suggests that the NEC may arise from the adenocarcinoma through a “dedifferentiation process”. Moreover, the overt continuity between the two components and focally positive expression of NE markers in adenocarcinoma component in one of our cases is of supportive of this hypothesis. In addition, loss of INI1 (one of those dedifferentiation markers) expression was found in both components (case 3) suggest that “dedifferentiation” from endometrioid carcinoma to form NEC may represent part of the mechanisms for the development of these cancers.
Differential diagnoses of endometrial NEC are extensive [4, 16]. One of the major differential diagnoses of the endometrial LCNEC is the dedifferentiated endometrial carcinoma [16]. Both of them share many histologic and immunophenotypic features including loss of MMR protein expression as well as positive for neuroendocrine markers [17, 19]. However, 3 cases presented here do not represent dedifferentiated carcinoma. This is mainly because of the following reasons. 1) the high-grade looking area of the cases morphologically show features of NEC without evidence of undifferentiated carcinoma such as sheet-like growth patterns; 2) immunophenotypically, the cancer cells are positive for at least 2 neuroendocrine markers; and 3) Among the three commonly used dedifferentiation markers (INI1, BRG1, and ARID1A), only INI1 was lost of expression in only one of the 3 cases we studied. The dedifferentiation markers of INI1, BRG1, and ARID1A belong to switch/sucrose non-fermenting protein complex. Loss of such protein complex expression has been widely applied for the diagnosis of dedifferentiated carcinomas [14, 20, 21]. Rosa-Rosa et al. [20] studied 10 dedifferentiated carcinomas, they found that 9 of 10 showed loss of ARID1A expression. Another study found that 15 of 30 (50%) of the dedifferentiated carcinomas showed either loss of BRG1 or INI1 or loss of both biomarkers [21]. In our cases, as mentioned earlier, there was only loss of INI1 expression in case 3, but both BRG1 and ARID1A expression were intact.
All the three patients aged < 60 years old, the tumor showed increased tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes at the tumor invading front or periphery, the tumor in case 1 located at the lower uterine segment. Such morphologic findings may raise a suspicion of Lynch syndrome [21]. MMR protein panel (MLH1, PMS2, MSH2 and MSH6) IHC was implemented to screening for Lynch syndrome. Interestingly, abnormal MMR protein expression were found in all 3 cases. MLH1 was lost in case 1 and 2, MSH2 and MSH6 was lost in case 3. Only PMS2 was intact in all cases. However, germ line mutational analysis was not performed due to limitations of genetic counselling, accessibility of next generation sequencing analysis. Upon reviewing the literature, we found a few studies addressing abnormal MMR protein expression in endometrial NEC [12, 14, 23]. Combined loss of MLH1 and PMS2 is usually more common. One study by Pocrnich et al. [12] reported 6 of 18 endometrial NEC cases showing MLH1/PMS2 loss. In contrast, isolated MSH6 or MSH2/MSH6 loss is relatively rare in endometrial NECs. The same study by Pocrnich et al showed only 1 of 18 endometrial NECs with MSH2/MSH6 loss [12]. There is also isolated PMS2 loss found in 2 out of 4 endometrial NECs [14]. Compared to all those reported series, loss of MMR protein expression can be found in endometrial NECs. But it is rare for us to find all 3 cases with loss of the expression. It is quite uncommon that single MLH1 loss without loss of PMS2 in 2 of the 3 cases we show in this study.
Although NEC usually exhibits aggressive behavior, our patients are alive with no disease for 51, 17 and 6 months, respectively. Interestingly, case 3 (FIGO Stage IIIC) with para-aortic lymph nodes metastasis and case 2 (FIGO Stage IB) didn’t receive either adjuvant chemotherapy or radiation therapy, though the follow-up time remains short. It is currently unclear what are the underlying reasons for patients with endometrial NECs having not very poor prognosis. Based on the findings from our cases and data presented elsewhere, we believe that loss of MMR protein expression in the tumor cells may illicit more immune responses due to incompetent repair those damaged DNA in the tumor cells. Such enhanced immune responses may contribute to a better prognosis compared to those NECs without MMR protein loss. Our observations were based on a relatively small number of follow-up samples, additional and systematic studies to address this issue are needed.
In summary, endometrial NEC frequently associated with MMR deficiency, some of which may have a better prognosis than we expect. It is important to emphasize that at least 2 NE markers should be reactive in >10% of tumor cells for the diagnosis of NEC in addition to morphologic support.