Endometrial carcinoma represents the most common gynecological cancer in Europe and the USA. Histopathological classification based on tumor morphology and tumor grade has played a crucial role in the management of endometrial carcinoma, allowing a prognostic stratification into distinct risk categories, and guiding surgical and adjuvant therapy. In 2013, The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) Research Network reported a large scale molecular analysis of 373 endometrial carcinomas which demonstrated four categories with distinct clinical, pathologic, and molecular features: POLE/ultramutated (7% of cases) microsatellite instability (MSI)/hypermutated (28%), copy-number low/endometrioid (39%), and copy-number high/serous-like (26%). In the present article, we report a detailed histological and molecular review of all endometrial carcinoma histotypes in light of the current ESGO/ESTRO/ESP guidelines. In particular, we focus on the distribution and prognostic value of the TCGA groups in each histotype.

The four TCGA-based molecular prognostic groups of endometrial carcinoma (EC), i.e., POLE-mutant, mismatch repair (MMR)-deficient, p53-abnormal, and “no specific molecular profile” (NSMP), have recently been integrated into ESGO-ESTRO-ESP guidelines. The POLE-mutant and MMR-deficient groups are associated with high mutational load, morphological heterogeneity, and inflammatory infiltration. These groups are frequent in high-grade endometrioid, undifferentiated/dedifferentiated, and mixed histotypes. POLE-mutant ECs show good prognosis and do not require adjuvant treatment, although the management of cases at stage >II is still undefined. MMR-deficient ECs show intermediate prognosis and are currently substratified based on clinicopathological variables, some of which might not have prognostic value. These groups may benefit from immunotherapy. P53-mutant ECs are typically high-grade and often morphologically ambiguous, accounting for virtually all serous ECs, most carcinosarcomas and mixed ECs, and half of clear-cell ECs. They show poor prognosis and are treated with chemoradiotherapy; a subset may benefit from HER2 inhibitors or PARP inhibitors. The NSMP group is the most frequent TCGA group; its prognosis is highly variable and affected by clinicopathological/molecular factors, most of which are still under evaluation. In conclusion, the TCGA classification has improved diagnosis, risk stratification, and management of EC. Further studies are needed to resolve the points of uncertainty that still exist.

Among the four endometrial cancer (EC) TCGA molecular groups, the MSI/hypermutated group represents an important percentage of tumors (30%), including different histotypes, and generally confers an intermediate prognosis for affected women, also providing new immunotherapeutic strategies. Immunohistochemistry for MMR proteins (MLH1, MSH2, MSH6 and PMS2) has become the optimal diagnostic MSI surrogate worldwide. This review aims to provide state-of-the-art knowledge on MMR deficiency/MSI in EC and to clarify the pathological assessment, interpretation pitfalls and reporting of MMR status.

Background. Gynecological neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) are extremely rare, accounting for 1.2–2.4% of the NENs. The aim of this study was to test cervical NENs for novel markers of potential utility for differential diagnosis and target therapy. Methods. All cases of our center (n = 16) were retrieved and tested by immunohistochemistry (IHC) for 12 markers including markers of neuroendocrine differentiation (chromogranin A, synaptophysin, CD56), transcription factors (CDX2 and TTF1), proteins p40, p63, p16INK4a, and p53, somatostatin receptors subtypes (SST2-SST5) and the proliferation marker Ki67 (MIB1). Results. All cases were poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinomas (NECs), 10 small cell types (small cell–neuroendocrine carcinomas, SCNECs) and 6 large cell types (large cell–neuroendocrine carcinomas, LCNECs); in 3 cases a predominant associated adenocarcinoma component was observed. Neuroendocrine cancer cells expressed at least 2 of the 3 tested neuroendocrine markers; p16 was intensely expressed in 14 (87.5%) cases; SST5 in 11 (56.25%, score 2–3, in 9 cases); SST2 in 8 (50%, score 2–3 in 8), CDX2 in 8 (50%), TTF1 in 5 (31.25%), and p53 in 1 case (0.06%). P63 and p40 expressions were negative, with the exception of one case that showed moderate expression for p63. Conclusions. P40 is a more useful marker for the differential diagnosis compared to squamous cell carcinoma. Neither CDX2 nor TTF1 expression may help the differential diagnosis versus potential cervical metastasis. P16 expression may suggest a cervical origin of NEC; however, it must be always integrated by clinical and instrumental data. The expression of SST2 and SST5 could support a role for SSAs (Somatostatin Analogues) in the diagnosis and therapy of patients with cervical NECs.

Background: Several pathological parameters, including tumor size, depth of stromal invasion, lympho-vascular space invasion and lymph node status, have been proposed as prognostic predictors in cervical cancer. However, given the high mortality and recurrence rate of cervical cancer, novel parameters that are able to provide additional prognostic information are needed in order to allow a better prognostic stratification of cervical cancer patients. Methods: A search was conducted on PubMed to identify relevant literature data regarding prognostic factors in cervical cancer. The key words “cervical cancer”, “prognostic factors”, “pathology”, and “outcome” were used. Results: The novel pathological grading system based on tumor budding and cell nest size appeared the most relevant prognostic factor in primary neoplasms. Moreover, other potentially useful prognostic factors were tumor size, depth of stromal invasion, lympho-vascular space invasion, perineural invasion, tumor-free distance and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes. Prognostic factors related to advanced-stage cervical cancer, including lymph-nodes status, endometrial and cervical involvement as well as distant metastases, were also taken into consideration. Conclusions: According to our findings, tumor budding and cell nest size grading system, depth of stromal invasion, lympho-vascular space invasion, perineural invasion, tumor-free distance and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes appeared the most relevant factors included in the pathology report.

Background: The diagnostic role of Wilms’ tumor 1 (WT1) is well known in gynaeco-pathological setting, since it is considered a specific marker of serous histotype and adnexal origin. Moreover, its oncogenic role has been recently highlighted in many cancers and it has also been regarded as a promising target antigen for cancer immunotherapy. However, the relationship between its expression and prognostic role in uterine cancer remains unclear. We analyzed the diagnostic and prognostic role of WT1 expression in patients with uterine carcinoma by completing a search using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines and the PICOS (Participants, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes, Study Design) model through PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science databases to identify studies that fit our search criteria. The objective of the current meta-analysis was to investigate the diagnostic and prognostic role of WT1 expression in patients with uterine carcinoma. Materials and Methods: A literature search was performed of the PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases for English-language studies published from January 2000 to April 2020. Studies were considered eligible if they evaluated the WT1 expression in uterine carcinoma. Results: In total, 35 articles were identified that used uterine carcinoma criteria and provided data for 1616 patients. The overall rate of WT1 expression in uterine carcinoma was 25%. The subgroup analysis of uterine cancer types revealed that WT1 was expressed differently among different histotypes (endometrioid, clear cell, serous carcinoma and carcinosarcoma). Discussion and Conclusions: The WT1 immunohistochemical expression is not limited to serous histotype and/or ovarian origin. In fact, a significant proportion of endometrial adenocarcinomas can also show WT1 immunoreactivity. Moreover, our study suggests that WT1 may be a potential marker to predict the prognosis of patients with uterine cancer, but more studies are needed to confirm its role in clinical practice.