Evaluation of a Patient With Non-Myoinvasive Uterine Serous Carcinoma Confined to a Polyp and Positive Peritoneal Washings With Somatic ARHGAP35 and KRAS Mutations

Currently, the application of peritoneal washings as a diagnostic tool for endometrial cancer staging is not well defined. The case described aims to highlight the current ambiguity surrounding the use of peritoneal washings in clinical practice.  A 69-year-old G3P3003 presented to her gynecologist...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Curēus (Palo Alto, CA) CA), 2022-07, Vol.14 (7), p.e26663
Hauptverfasser: Silverwood, Sierra M, Lagstein, Amir, Risinger, John I, Gressel, Gregory
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue 7
container_start_page e26663
container_title Curēus (Palo Alto, CA)
container_volume 14
creator Silverwood, Sierra M
Lagstein, Amir
Risinger, John I
Gressel, Gregory
description Currently, the application of peritoneal washings as a diagnostic tool for endometrial cancer staging is not well defined. The case described aims to highlight the current ambiguity surrounding the use of peritoneal washings in clinical practice.  A 69-year-old G3P3003 presented to her gynecologist with complaints of new-onset heavy vaginal bleeding. The patient sought an endometrial biopsy, which suggested serous endometrial intraepithelial carcinoma (EIC) focally suspicious for invasive carcinoma, with the involvement of polyps. Based on these results, a robotic-assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, bilateral sentinel lymph node dissection, and omentectomy were performed. Results from her final pathology exhibited a stage IA uterine serous carcinoma (USC) involving a polyp (4.2 cm in greatest dimension) with no myometrial or lymphovascular invasion, but washings were positive for adenocarcinoma. Based on her family history of malignancy, the patient underwent germline panel testing. The patient's somatic tumor testing demonstrated proficient DNA mismatch repair status, microsatellite stability, low tumor mutational burden (4 mut/Mb), low loss of heterozygosity (9%), amplification of the ERBB2 (HER2/neu) gene by both immunohistochemistry (3+, 20% positive) and fluorescence in-situ hybridization. Her tumor also had weakly positive estrogen receptor expression (1+, 10% positive); furthermore, some pathogenic variants in KRAS (c.37G>T), PIK3CA (c.263G>A), and TP53 (c.743G>A) were identified. Given the incongruent findings found with the positive peritoneal washing and negative lymph node involvement in addition to molecular testing, management for this patient was unclear. Ultimately, this case highlights a number of advances within the field of gynecological oncology but also emphasizes the persistent ambiguity and incongruency in the management of patients with early-stage high-risk histologies. Moving forward it will become increasingly important to be able to develop a more standardized process to assess how these diagnostic tools should inform prognosis and treatment plans.
doi_str_mv 10.7759/cureus.26663
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_9357428</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2708653714</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c342t-6ef000241011da89d12ae3798da30023187fa5ba355e097929beed5690b99c793</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdkk1vEzEQhleIilalN87IEhcObLHX668LUhSVFtGPqKHq0ZrsehtXGzvY3kj5PfxRvEmpSk8eeZ739cx4iuIDwadCMPW1GYIZ4mnFOadviqOKcFlKIuu3L-LD4iTGR4wxwaLCAr8rDilTtRKSHxV_zjbQD5Csd8h3CNAsx8YldG_TEl17V15tvXUbiHZj0F0ywTqD5ib4IaIphMY6vwI09a7LiRYlP3r4frtG4NocRZtG5SwLk3cGenQPcWndQ9w_Mc_yZBs0ub04n8wo28l-3k7m6GpIu7ri--Kggz6ak6fzuLj7fvZrelFe3pz_mE4uy4bWVSq56XKTVU0wIS1I1ZIKDBVKtkDzPSVSdMAWQBkzWAlVqYUxLeMKL5RqhKLHxbe973pYrEzb5DEE6PU62BWErfZg9f8ZZ5f6wW-0okzUlcwGn58Mgv89mJj0ysbG9D04k-elKzH-Qc0pz-inV-ijH4LL7Y2U5IwKUmfqy55qgo8xmO65GIL1uAB6vwB6twAZ__iygWf433fTv3TYrhU</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2708653714</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Evaluation of a Patient With Non-Myoinvasive Uterine Serous Carcinoma Confined to a Polyp and Positive Peritoneal Washings With Somatic ARHGAP35 and KRAS Mutations</title><source>PubMed Central Open Access</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Silverwood, Sierra M ; Lagstein, Amir ; Risinger, John I ; Gressel, Gregory</creator><creatorcontrib>Silverwood, Sierra M ; Lagstein, Amir ; Risinger, John I ; Gressel, Gregory</creatorcontrib><description>Currently, the application of peritoneal washings as a diagnostic tool for endometrial cancer staging is not well defined. The case described aims to highlight the current ambiguity surrounding the use of peritoneal washings in clinical practice.  A 69-year-old G3P3003 presented to her gynecologist with complaints of new-onset heavy vaginal bleeding. The patient sought an endometrial biopsy, which suggested serous endometrial intraepithelial carcinoma (EIC) focally suspicious for invasive carcinoma, with the involvement of polyps. Based on these results, a robotic-assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, bilateral sentinel lymph node dissection, and omentectomy were performed. Results from her final pathology exhibited a stage IA uterine serous carcinoma (USC) involving a polyp (4.2 cm in greatest dimension) with no myometrial or lymphovascular invasion, but washings were positive for adenocarcinoma. Based on her family history of malignancy, the patient underwent germline panel testing. The patient's somatic tumor testing demonstrated proficient DNA mismatch repair status, microsatellite stability, low tumor mutational burden (4 mut/Mb), low loss of heterozygosity (9%), amplification of the ERBB2 (HER2/neu) gene by both immunohistochemistry (3+, 20% positive) and fluorescence in-situ hybridization. Her tumor also had weakly positive estrogen receptor expression (1+, 10% positive); furthermore, some pathogenic variants in KRAS (c.37G&gt;T), PIK3CA (c.263G&gt;A), and TP53 (c.743G&gt;A) were identified. Given the incongruent findings found with the positive peritoneal washing and negative lymph node involvement in addition to molecular testing, management for this patient was unclear. Ultimately, this case highlights a number of advances within the field of gynecological oncology but also emphasizes the persistent ambiguity and incongruency in the management of patients with early-stage high-risk histologies. Moving forward it will become increasingly important to be able to develop a more standardized process to assess how these diagnostic tools should inform prognosis and treatment plans.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2168-8184</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2168-8184</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.7759/cureus.26663</identifier><identifier>PMID: 35949786</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Cureus Inc</publisher><subject>Abdomen ; Cancer therapies ; Case reports ; Cellular biology ; Chemotherapy ; Decision making ; Endometrial cancer ; Family medical history ; Genetics ; Hysterectomy ; Lymphatic system ; Medical prognosis ; Mutation ; Obstetrics/Gynecology ; Oncology ; Patients ; Polyps ; Vagina</subject><ispartof>Curēus (Palo Alto, CA), 2022-07, Vol.14 (7), p.e26663</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2022, Silverwood et al.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2022, Silverwood et al. This work is published under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2022, Silverwood et al. 2022 Silverwood et al.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c342t-6ef000241011da89d12ae3798da30023187fa5ba355e097929beed5690b99c793</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c342t-6ef000241011da89d12ae3798da30023187fa5ba355e097929beed5690b99c793</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9357428/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9357428/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,885,27924,27925,53791,53793</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35949786$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Silverwood, Sierra M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lagstein, Amir</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Risinger, John I</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gressel, Gregory</creatorcontrib><title>Evaluation of a Patient With Non-Myoinvasive Uterine Serous Carcinoma Confined to a Polyp and Positive Peritoneal Washings With Somatic ARHGAP35 and KRAS Mutations</title><title>Curēus (Palo Alto, CA)</title><addtitle>Cureus</addtitle><description>Currently, the application of peritoneal washings as a diagnostic tool for endometrial cancer staging is not well defined. The case described aims to highlight the current ambiguity surrounding the use of peritoneal washings in clinical practice.  A 69-year-old G3P3003 presented to her gynecologist with complaints of new-onset heavy vaginal bleeding. The patient sought an endometrial biopsy, which suggested serous endometrial intraepithelial carcinoma (EIC) focally suspicious for invasive carcinoma, with the involvement of polyps. Based on these results, a robotic-assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, bilateral sentinel lymph node dissection, and omentectomy were performed. Results from her final pathology exhibited a stage IA uterine serous carcinoma (USC) involving a polyp (4.2 cm in greatest dimension) with no myometrial or lymphovascular invasion, but washings were positive for adenocarcinoma. Based on her family history of malignancy, the patient underwent germline panel testing. The patient's somatic tumor testing demonstrated proficient DNA mismatch repair status, microsatellite stability, low tumor mutational burden (4 mut/Mb), low loss of heterozygosity (9%), amplification of the ERBB2 (HER2/neu) gene by both immunohistochemistry (3+, 20% positive) and fluorescence in-situ hybridization. Her tumor also had weakly positive estrogen receptor expression (1+, 10% positive); furthermore, some pathogenic variants in KRAS (c.37G&gt;T), PIK3CA (c.263G&gt;A), and TP53 (c.743G&gt;A) were identified. Given the incongruent findings found with the positive peritoneal washing and negative lymph node involvement in addition to molecular testing, management for this patient was unclear. Ultimately, this case highlights a number of advances within the field of gynecological oncology but also emphasizes the persistent ambiguity and incongruency in the management of patients with early-stage high-risk histologies. Moving forward it will become increasingly important to be able to develop a more standardized process to assess how these diagnostic tools should inform prognosis and treatment plans.</description><subject>Abdomen</subject><subject>Cancer therapies</subject><subject>Case reports</subject><subject>Cellular biology</subject><subject>Chemotherapy</subject><subject>Decision making</subject><subject>Endometrial cancer</subject><subject>Family medical history</subject><subject>Genetics</subject><subject>Hysterectomy</subject><subject>Lymphatic system</subject><subject>Medical prognosis</subject><subject>Mutation</subject><subject>Obstetrics/Gynecology</subject><subject>Oncology</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Polyps</subject><subject>Vagina</subject><issn>2168-8184</issn><issn>2168-8184</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><recordid>eNpdkk1vEzEQhleIilalN87IEhcObLHX668LUhSVFtGPqKHq0ZrsehtXGzvY3kj5PfxRvEmpSk8eeZ739cx4iuIDwadCMPW1GYIZ4mnFOadviqOKcFlKIuu3L-LD4iTGR4wxwaLCAr8rDilTtRKSHxV_zjbQD5Csd8h3CNAsx8YldG_TEl17V15tvXUbiHZj0F0ywTqD5ib4IaIphMY6vwI09a7LiRYlP3r4frtG4NocRZtG5SwLk3cGenQPcWndQ9w_Mc_yZBs0ub04n8wo28l-3k7m6GpIu7ri--Kggz6ak6fzuLj7fvZrelFe3pz_mE4uy4bWVSq56XKTVU0wIS1I1ZIKDBVKtkDzPSVSdMAWQBkzWAlVqYUxLeMKL5RqhKLHxbe973pYrEzb5DEE6PU62BWErfZg9f8ZZ5f6wW-0okzUlcwGn58Mgv89mJj0ysbG9D04k-elKzH-Qc0pz-inV-ijH4LL7Y2U5IwKUmfqy55qgo8xmO65GIL1uAB6vwB6twAZ__iygWf433fTv3TYrhU</recordid><startdate>20220708</startdate><enddate>20220708</enddate><creator>Silverwood, Sierra M</creator><creator>Lagstein, Amir</creator><creator>Risinger, John I</creator><creator>Gressel, Gregory</creator><general>Cureus Inc</general><general>Cureus</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20220708</creationdate><title>Evaluation of a Patient With Non-Myoinvasive Uterine Serous Carcinoma Confined to a Polyp and Positive Peritoneal Washings With Somatic ARHGAP35 and KRAS Mutations</title><author>Silverwood, Sierra M ; Lagstein, Amir ; Risinger, John I ; Gressel, Gregory</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c342t-6ef000241011da89d12ae3798da30023187fa5ba355e097929beed5690b99c793</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Abdomen</topic><topic>Cancer therapies</topic><topic>Case reports</topic><topic>Cellular biology</topic><topic>Chemotherapy</topic><topic>Decision making</topic><topic>Endometrial cancer</topic><topic>Family medical history</topic><topic>Genetics</topic><topic>Hysterectomy</topic><topic>Lymphatic system</topic><topic>Medical prognosis</topic><topic>Mutation</topic><topic>Obstetrics/Gynecology</topic><topic>Oncology</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Polyps</topic><topic>Vagina</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Silverwood, Sierra M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lagstein, Amir</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Risinger, John I</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gressel, Gregory</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Access via ProQuest (Open Access)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Curēus (Palo Alto, CA)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Silverwood, Sierra M</au><au>Lagstein, Amir</au><au>Risinger, John I</au><au>Gressel, Gregory</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Evaluation of a Patient With Non-Myoinvasive Uterine Serous Carcinoma Confined to a Polyp and Positive Peritoneal Washings With Somatic ARHGAP35 and KRAS Mutations</atitle><jtitle>Curēus (Palo Alto, CA)</jtitle><addtitle>Cureus</addtitle><date>2022-07-08</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>14</volume><issue>7</issue><spage>e26663</spage><pages>e26663-</pages><issn>2168-8184</issn><eissn>2168-8184</eissn><abstract>Currently, the application of peritoneal washings as a diagnostic tool for endometrial cancer staging is not well defined. The case described aims to highlight the current ambiguity surrounding the use of peritoneal washings in clinical practice.  A 69-year-old G3P3003 presented to her gynecologist with complaints of new-onset heavy vaginal bleeding. The patient sought an endometrial biopsy, which suggested serous endometrial intraepithelial carcinoma (EIC) focally suspicious for invasive carcinoma, with the involvement of polyps. Based on these results, a robotic-assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, bilateral sentinel lymph node dissection, and omentectomy were performed. Results from her final pathology exhibited a stage IA uterine serous carcinoma (USC) involving a polyp (4.2 cm in greatest dimension) with no myometrial or lymphovascular invasion, but washings were positive for adenocarcinoma. Based on her family history of malignancy, the patient underwent germline panel testing. The patient's somatic tumor testing demonstrated proficient DNA mismatch repair status, microsatellite stability, low tumor mutational burden (4 mut/Mb), low loss of heterozygosity (9%), amplification of the ERBB2 (HER2/neu) gene by both immunohistochemistry (3+, 20% positive) and fluorescence in-situ hybridization. Her tumor also had weakly positive estrogen receptor expression (1+, 10% positive); furthermore, some pathogenic variants in KRAS (c.37G&gt;T), PIK3CA (c.263G&gt;A), and TP53 (c.743G&gt;A) were identified. Given the incongruent findings found with the positive peritoneal washing and negative lymph node involvement in addition to molecular testing, management for this patient was unclear. Ultimately, this case highlights a number of advances within the field of gynecological oncology but also emphasizes the persistent ambiguity and incongruency in the management of patients with early-stage high-risk histologies. Moving forward it will become increasingly important to be able to develop a more standardized process to assess how these diagnostic tools should inform prognosis and treatment plans.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Cureus Inc</pub><pmid>35949786</pmid><doi>10.7759/cureus.26663</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 2168-8184
ispartof Curēus (Palo Alto, CA), 2022-07, Vol.14 (7), p.e26663
issn 2168-8184
2168-8184
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_9357428
source PubMed Central Open Access; PubMed Central
subjects Abdomen
Cancer therapies
Case reports
Cellular biology
Chemotherapy
Decision making
Endometrial cancer
Family medical history
Genetics
Hysterectomy
Lymphatic system
Medical prognosis
Mutation
Obstetrics/Gynecology
Oncology
Patients
Polyps
Vagina
title Evaluation of a Patient With Non-Myoinvasive Uterine Serous Carcinoma Confined to a Polyp and Positive Peritoneal Washings With Somatic ARHGAP35 and KRAS Mutations
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-23T01%3A26%3A16IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Evaluation%20of%20a%20Patient%20With%20Non-Myoinvasive%20Uterine%20Serous%20Carcinoma%20Confined%20to%20a%20Polyp%20and%20Positive%20Peritoneal%20Washings%20With%20Somatic%20ARHGAP35%20and%20KRAS%20Mutations&rft.jtitle=Cur%C4%93us%20(Palo%20Alto,%20CA)&rft.au=Silverwood,%20Sierra%20M&rft.date=2022-07-08&rft.volume=14&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=e26663&rft.pages=e26663-&rft.issn=2168-8184&rft.eissn=2168-8184&rft_id=info:doi/10.7759/cureus.26663&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2708653714%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2708653714&rft_id=info:pmid/35949786&rfr_iscdi=true