Abstract
Background/Aim: Cholangioblastic variant of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (CVICC) is an exceedingly rare primary biliary tract tumor and typically occurs in young patients with a median age of 24.5-year-old. It can mimic metastatic well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors in the liver with its similar histologic and immunophenotypic features. Case Report: We hereby report a CVICC in a 68-year-old female patient with distinctive biphasic cytologic features. The patient was diagnosed and treated as a metastatic well differentiated neuroendocrine tumor. The recurrent liver tumor was resected and the tumor cells were strongly positive for Inhibin A and cytokeratin 19 (CK19), focally and weakly positive for synaptophysin and chromogranin, and negative for Insulinoma associated protein 1 (INSM1). Ribonucleic acid (RNA) sequencing showed that the tumor bared a characteristic Nipped-B-like protein (NIPBL)-Nucleus accumbens-associated protein 1 (NACC1) gene fusion. Conclusion: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first documented case in an elder patient of this entity with NIPPL-NACC1 gene fusion. Acknowledgment of the biphasic cytology, screening with Inhibin A in suspicious cases, and coupled with a molecular study may facilitate accurate classification of this aggressive tumor and lead to proper clinical management.
- Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma
- cholangioblastic variant
- biphasic cytology
- liver
- inhibin A
- NIPBL-NACC1 fusion gene
Cholangiocarcinoma is a lethal disease with increasing incidence worldwide and the second most common primary malignant liver tumor, accounting for approximately 15% of cases (1). It typically occurs in patients over 65 years old in the United States, and the risk factors include chronic hepatitis and obstructive biliary tract diseases. The cholangioblastic variant of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma is a rare histological variant, which was first reported in 2005 by Vrettous et al. (2) and subsequently named by Braxton et al. (3) in 2017. To the best of our knowledge, it is extremely rare and only seven cases have been reported in the English literature so far (2-5). The variant has been reported exclusively in young patients with a median age of 24.5 years. It often mimics neuroendocrine tumor (NET) morphologically and immunophenotypically, but clinically, it is more aggressive and requires different chemotherapy regimens. It is essential to increase the awareness of this unusual variant and thus prompt proper treatment. Here, we report the first documented elder case of CVIC in a 68-year-old female patient who was diagnosed with metastatic NET. The tumor morphology, molecular characteristics and immunoprofile are studied and discussed.
Case Report
A 68-year-old female patient was diagnosed with a well-differentiated NET metastasizing to the liver in 2011. On the biopsy, the tumor was immunoreactive to synaptophysin while negative for thyroid transcription factor 1 (TTF1), caudal-related homeobox gene 2(CDX2), and paired box gene 8 (Pax8). The proliferation index Ki67 was <3%. The tumor was stage IV (cTxN0M1). The patient received SANDOSTATIN® LAR DEPOT (octreotide acetate) chemotherapy and four tumor embolizations. In 2013, the patient was found to have a 10 cm liver residual/recurrent tumor and underwent a left hepatectomy. She had external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) in June 2015 for presumed recurrence and has remained in remission for 6 years.
In October 2021, the surveillance abdomen magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) showed a 5.5 cm tumor recurrence in her right hepatic lobe (Figure 1A). Subsequent partial right hepatectomy showed a 5.5 cm, multinodular tumor with overlying hepatic capsular invasion and permeative interface with normal liver tissue. Histologically, the tumor displayed varied architectures, including trabecular, nested, microcystic/follicular, organoid patterns as well as angulated tubules in a fibrous stroma. Cytologically, the tumor exhibited characteristic biphasic patterns composed primarily of small monotonous neoplastic cells with uniform round nuclei and scattered islands of large hepatoid cells with eosinophilic granular cytoplasm (Figure 1B-D).
Imaging and histology of cholangioblastic intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. A) Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI, T2 axial) showed a 5.5 cm heterogeneous mass with cystic changes in the right hepatic lobe at segment 8 status post-surgery; B-D) histologically, the tumor demonstrates various growth patterns including macrocystic and microcystic (B), solid (C), and trabecular (D) architectures. Islands of large hepatoid cells with granular and oncocytic cytoplasm are also present (C).
On the immunostaining, the tumor was strongly immunoreactive to pancytokeratin and Inhibin A (Figure 2A), and other biliary tract specific epithelial markers CK19 and cytokeratin 7 (CK7). Regarding neuroendocrine markers, the tumor was focally and weakly positive for synaptophysin (Figure 2B) and Chromogranin (Figure 2C), and negative for INSM 1. The tumor showed negative immunoreaction to hepatocytic markers (HepPar1 and Glypican 3), and all other tested tissue lineage markers [Pax8, GATA family transcription factor 3 (GATA3), CDX2, TTF1 and cytokeratin 20 (CK20)]. The Ki67 proliferation index was approximately 35% (Figure 2D), and up to 9 mitoses per 10 high power fields were identified. The immunoprofile supported a diagnosis of cholangioblastic variant of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Further molecular study (Caris testing) was performed by ribonucleic acid (RNA) sequencing, and a NIPBL-NACC1 gene fusion was detected, which is reportedly characteristic of the cholangioblastic variant of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma by Argani et al. (4). On Caris testing, the tumor was microsatellite stable and negative for Her2/neu amplification, and low tumor mutational burden (2 mut/mb) and low genomic loss of heterozygosity (LOH, 2%) were shown. The programed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) tumor portion score was <1%. No neoadjuvant therapy- associated gene mutation or targeted drugs were identified. Interestingly, the serum CEA and CA19.9 were within normal limits.
Immunohistochemistry of the cholangioblastic intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. (A-D) The tumor is diffusely and strongly positive for Inhibin A (A), focally and weakly positive for synaptophysin (B), and chromogranin (C); Ki67 highlights about 35% of the tumor cells (D).
Post-surgery, the patient recovered well and was treated with chemotherapy with Xeloda. As of 8/15/2022 follow up, she finished 5 cycles of Xeloda and was doing well with no tumor identified on the MRI and positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography scans.
Discussion
Cholangioblastic variant of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma is a rare variant of primary intrahepatic biliary tract tumor, and only a few cases have been reported so far (2-5). It usually occurs in young patients with a mean age of 24.5-year-old. However, the age of the patient should not dissuade the suspicion for this tumor, as we herein report the tumor in a 68-year-old patient.
Morphologically, the tumor displays a variety of growth patterns, including trabecular, nested, microcystic/follicular, organoid as well as angulated glandular architectures. It often shows predominantly monotonous cytologic features, with small and uniform tumor cells with basophilic cytoplasm and a lack of nuclear pleomorphism. Occasionally, islands of large hepatoid cells with abundant eosinophilic cytoplasm are also present. In biopsies, due to the monotonous appearance and immunoreaction to some neuroendocrine markers, it is often mistaken as a metastatic well-differentiated NET of unknown primary site. Indeed, 5 of 7 previously reported cases and our case of this tumor were initially misdiagnosed as metastatic well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors. Other considerations may include metastatic breast carcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation and metastatic acinar cell carcinoma of the pancreas, both of which may show patchy labeling for neuroendocrine markers and could be mistaken for a well-differentiated NET.
However, the distinct biphasic cytologic features and patchy immunoreaction to synaptophysin and chromogranin in the tumor should raise concerns for this variant of cholangiocarcinoma. In this scenario, screening with inhibin A immunohistochemistry is the logical step to identify candidate cases. The strong and diffuse immunoreaction to Inhibin A and lack of expression of INSM1, GATA3, and Trypsin A all strongly support the diagnosis.
It is not surprising that the expression of neuroendocrine markers can be found in the primitive epithelial cells that compose the developing ductal plate or other blastomas, including hepatoblastoma, pancreatoblastoma, and pulmonary blastoma. Inhibin A expression can be present in 25% of cholangiocarcinoma with stem cell features and ⅛ of fetal liver tissue (3). It is worthy of mention that Inhibin A is not exclusively expressed in CVICC; it is also reportedly expressed in 13% of metastatic NET. In challenging cases, a NIPBL-NACC1 fusion gene, which was recently reported by Argani et al. (4) to be characteristic of CVICC, should be considered to further support the diagnosis. The possible biological function of the NIPBL-NACC1 fused gene is largely unknown but could be the dysregulation of NACC1 protein, thus promoting neoplastic growth.
In summary, cholangioblastic variant of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma is a rare entity with distinct biphasic cytology, a strong immunoreaction to Inhibin A, and novel NIPBL-NACC1 gene fusion. It is often misdiagnosed as a metastatic well-differentiated NET. Increasing awareness of the diagnostic pitfall with NETs and including Inhibin A as a screening immunomarker in candidate cases may facilitate proper classification of these tumors and prevent future mistakes.
Footnotes
Authors’ Contributions
GH wrote the manuscript; LNH made the diagnosis; EA contributed to the diagnosis; DS and DB contributed to the patient care; and JL designed the study, collected and analyzed the data, and finalized the manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest
The Authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest related to this study.
- Received August 22, 2022.
- Revision received September 7, 2022.
- Accepted September 8, 2022.
- Copyright © 2022 International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. George J. Delinasios), All rights reserved.