P53 null phenotype is a “positive result” in urothelial carcinoma in situ

Abstract

AbstractThe concept of a “p53 null phenotype” (complete loss of staining) is well-recognized in the gynecologic pathology literature, implicitly reflecting that this staining pattern represents a TP53 mutation. However, in the genitourinary pathology literature, a p53 null phenotype has only been addressed regarding the prognosis of invasive urothelial carcinoma, and not as a diagnostic biomarker for urothelial carcinoma in situ (CIS). Herein, 25 cases of urothelial carcinoma in situ [diagnoses made on hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) stained sections] showing null pattern p53 staining were retrieved from 22 different patients (16 males and 6 females, age range 52–85 years; average 69.6 years), most commonly showing large cell pleomorphic pattern morphology. One representative tissue block per case was selected for next-generation DNA sequencing (NGS). All 21 cases (100%) passing quality control for NGS showed at least 1 TP53 mutation (majority nonsense or frameshift mutations), including 3 cases with 2 mutations and 3 cases with 3 mutations. Three patients with multiple available samples harbored 1 or more shared TP53 mutations at 2 different time points, indicating clonality of the temporally distinct lesions. Additionally, 2 patients had an additional unique TP53 mutation at a later time point, suggesting intratumoral heterogeneity and/or temporal clonal evolution. While urothelial CIS remains an H&E diagnosis in most cases, a p53 immunostain may be useful in a subset of challenging cases. This study demonstrates that a p53 null phenotype represents an aberrant result in urothelial CIS with supportive molecular analysis showing a previously unknown level of complexity for TP53 mutations among these noninvasive lesions. Adequate recognition of the p53 null phenotype as a “biologically supportive result”, similar to strong and diffuse staining with p53, is important and may warrant a formal consensus statement for recommended p53 reporting (i.e., “wild type” versus “aberrant or mutant”).