Abstract
Molecular testing in routine surgical pathology is becoming an important component of the workup of many different types of tumors. In fact, in some organ systems, guidelines now suggest that the standard of care is to obtain specific molecular panels for tumor classification and/or therapeutic planning. In the head and neck, clinically applicable molecular tests are not as abundant as in other organ systems. Most current head and neck biomarkers are utilized for diagnosis rather than as companion diagnostic tests to predict therapeutic response. As the number of potential molecular biomarker assays increases and cost pressures escalate, the pathologist must be able to navigate the molecular testing pathways. This review explores scenarios in which molecular testing might be beneficial and cost-effective in head and neck pathology.
Similar content being viewed by others
Main
Molecular pathology has become an essential tool in surgical pathology in many different tumor types, and diagnoses molecular assays have become the standard of care for diagnosis and management of certain malignancies.1, 2 At the same time, we are experiencing an exponential growth in the number of tumor assays available, we are also experiencing financial and cost pressures nationally.3, 4 Across medicine, efforts are being made to reduce cost, while improving quality and efficiency and patient satisfaction. These goals were codified in a 2008 Institute of Medicine report that described the so-called triple aim:5, 6, 7
-
Improving the patient experience of care, including quality and satisfaction
-
Improving the health of populations
-
Reducing the per capita cost of health care
In recent years, national payment reform efforts have been escalating to address the cost side of the triple aim, with programs including expand bundled payment models, capitation, and accountable care.3, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 In these payment models, every additional intervention can be seen as representing added cost (not revenue). In pathology, this means that every added test ordered represents reduced overall revenue from a fixed payment, which is unlike the traditional fee-for-service model, but similar to current models for diagnosis-related group payments.13, 14 Utilization management efforts need to be directed at maximizing quality and minimizing cost through reduction of unnecessary or non-contributory testing. Although the ‘gatekeeper’ role for influencing test ordering practices has not been seen as enviable in the past, new payment models may encourage pathologists to take on utilization management to help provide value in managing limited resources for organizations and groups.15, 16, 17
Because of external and internal pressures, the pathologist today needs to not only be familiar and comfortable with the wide array of molecular tests available, but also needs to be able to critically examine the rational for molecular testing and understand the value that can be provided (or not) in specific scenarios. In head and neck pathology, there are molecularly based markers for almost every type of tumor and disease. Many studies describe markers with putative prognostic value.18, 19 There are also diagnostically useful markers. The most powerful markers, which are limited in head and neck pathology today, are those that directly affect therapeutic decision making. This review will focus on selecting cost-effective and clinically useful molecular assays, illustrated with several head and neck pathology examples.
Molecular testing for diagnosis
Early approaches in molecular diagnostics were focused on mutations that were specifically associated with a disease or condition.20, 21, 22 These diagnostic assays have been important drivers in pathologists’ ability to develop refined classification systems and provide more exact diagnoses. Early testing was hampered by the difficulties in obtaining enough fresh tissue for available approaches.22 With the widespread implementation of polymerase chain reaction and fluorescent in situ hybridization and now even more advanced technologies, routine testing has become much simpler to perform on paraffin-embedded material.
Many common diagnostic tests today involve tumor-associated oncogene mutations, such as translocations and point mutations.23, 24, 25, 26 Some of the best studied translocations are those associated with hematopoietic malignancies and sarcomas.23 In the head and neck, one can encounter these hematopoietic and soft tissue malignancies and molecular testing will be used for diagnosis, often paired with other diagnostic markers, such as flow cytometry and/or immunohistochemistry.
In recent years, translocations have been increasingly identified in epithelial-derived solid tumors. In the head and neck, several tumor-associated translocations have been defined in salivary gland tumors.27, 28, 29 These translocations appear to be relatively specific, and most have a relatively high prevalence within their tumor category (Table 1). Interestingly, several of these translocations were first identified years ago based on classical cytogenetic studies. It was not until fluorescent in situ hybridization technologies allowed for the study of paraffin-embedded tissue samples that the surprisingly high percentage of cases harboring the translocations was truly appreciated.30, 31, 32, 33
Molecular testing for therapeutic decision making
Another recent advance in oncologic molecular diagnostics has been the identification of clinically useful molecular assays to predict responsiveness or resistance to specific therapies. As a general category, these markers are often referred to as ‘companion diagnostics.’34, 35, 36 Companion diagnostics have received national press in the past few years because of the Food and Drug Administration’s proposal to implement oversight laboratory developed tests, with a particular focus on companion diagnostics.4, 37, 38
In head and neck cancer, relatively few companion diagnostic assays are used in the routine clinical setting. For example, despite the fact that squamous cell is extremely common, there are very few molecular assays for squamous cell carcinoma that are used for therapeutic decision making. The most widely studied markers in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) with prognostic implications are viral markers for Epstein–Barr virus and human papillomavirus (HPV).39, 40, 41 These markers can be used as diagnostic tools, to help subclassify squamous cell carcinoma variants in specific anatomical subsites. It has also been recognized that viral-associated squamous cell carcinomas may have a different prognosis than tobacco associated HNSCC, but they may also respond in a different way to radiation and chemotherapy.41, 42, 43 These observations have led to ongoing clinical trials using HPV testing to identify patients for de-escalation therapy.44, 45 Currently, this therapeutic approach is being used in the clinical trial setting, but more widespread use is likely if the trials are successful.
Another exciting avenue for molecular oncology testing has arisen from the advent of novel testing platforms using new technologies for next-generation sequencing, or massively parallel sequencing.46, 47, 48 With the ability to sequence the entire exome (or the entire genome) in a rapid, cost-effective and highly sensitive manner, more and more mutations are being identified in human malignancies. These techniques are particularly useful to identify low prevalence mutations with potential therapeutic targets agents.49 Recent work from the Cancer Genome Atlas project, which undertakes next-generation sequencing for specific tumor types, has given us a deeper understanding of the mutations that can be seen in HNSCC.50, 51, 52 Although this may lead to more extensive and expanded clinical testing platforms, it may also lead to better selection of drugs, either as stand-alone therapy, or as combination therapies.53
Clinical applications for molecular testing in head and neck pathology
The challenge for the pathologist is not just knowing the relevant mutation profiles for different tumors, but also in truly understanding the practical value for patient care and being able to assess the benefit of any given mutation panel. Perhaps the most important question that a pathologist can ask before ordering a molecular test is: how will this test result change the management of this patient? There are many cases in which a molecular test can be done; the pathologist must know when the molecular test should be done. The scenarios when molecular testing is a cost-effective and high value addition to the diagnostic workup are broad and varied, and a case-by-case approach is likely needed. For example, the pathologist who is facing a challenging differential diagnosis, including both tumors with different management protocols, may find a diagnostic molecular test extremely useful. But, in a differential diagnosis where the management would be the same, the molecular test might be simply added unnecessary cost. In cases where novel targeted therapies or alternative approaches are being explored, molecular testing, particularly in the setting of companion diagnostics, may be necessary. In other cases, where there are no available targeted therapies, the testing may not be important. In the ensuing section, a few illustrative example cases will be explored, and the decision making surrounding molecular testing will be discussed.
Case 1
A 54-year-old female presented with a partially cystic mass of the parotid gland. The tumor was resected and the margins were negative. The histology demonstrated a lesion with three cell types, including mucous cells, epidermoid cells, and intermediate cells. The diagnosis of low-grade mucoepidermoid carcinoma was made (Figure 1).
Case 2
A 54-year-old female presented with a solid and cystic mass in the parotid gland that was resected. The histology demonstrated a complex cystic lesion with abundant oncocytic cells, some of which were lining papillary structures. There were also areas with islands of mucous cells and epidermoid cells. The lesion was surrounded by a dense lymphoid stroma. A translocation analysis demonstrated a positive result. The diagnosis of mucoepidermoid carcinoma was made, and a comment mentioned the possibility of a Warthin-like variant morphology54, 55 (Figures 2 and 3).
Commentary
It has been well established that mucoepidermoid carcinomas can harbor a specific translocation, the MECT1-MAML2 (CRTC1/3-MAML2).29, 56 The translocation is more common in low and intermediate grade tumors, but can also be found in high-grade mucoepidermoid carcinoma. Another translocation, the EWSR1-POU5F1 has been identified in a subset of high-grade mucoepidermoid carcinomas.57, 58 These translocations are not seen in mimickers of these tumors, such as adenosquamous carcinoma.59 The most common testing approach uses break-apart fluorescent in situ hybridization probes. The assay can easily be performed on fresh tissue, paraffin-embedded tissue, and even on cytological samples.
Though this assay is straightforward to perform and interpret, in most cases of routine mucoepidermoid carcinoma (such as case 1 above), there is very little role for testing. When the diagnosis can be made on the H&E slide, identifying the translocation will not change patient management and will add cost to the workup of the tumor. With no current role for targeted therapy, particularly in the low and intermediate grade tumors, the test is of limited value in this setting.
In the second case, the diagnosis is not as straightforward and the pathologist may consider a differential diagnosis of a Warthin tumor with metaplasia and a Warthin-like mucoepidermoid carcinoma. Early studies demonstrated suggested that Warthin tumors with metaplasia could harbor the translocation,60 although other studies did not have this finding.61 Further investigations have suggested a more likely explanation is the presence of a Warthin-like variant of mucoepidermoid carcinoma.54 In case 2, a molecular assay to test for the translocation, particularly with the positive result, was a useful diagnostic biomarker. In the highly specific scenario of a challenging variant morphology where the differential diagnosis included a benign entity, the presence of the translocation would be of clinical benefit.
Case 3
A 38-year-old male presented with a parotid mass lesion. A superficial parotidectomy was performed and showed a solid tumor with predominantly clear cells. An immunohistochemical workup was performed, which demonstrated that the tumor was negative for p63, pankeratin, CAM5.2, SMA, calponin, and CK5/6. The tumor was positive for CD99. An EWSR translocation analysis was positive and a diagnosis of Ewing’s/PNET was made (Figures 4 and 5).
Commentary
Based purely on the morphology of this tumor, the pathologist might consider a fairly broad differential diagnosis. Primary tumors of epithelial origin, such as clear cell carcinoma, clear cell mucoepidermoid carcinoma, and clear cell myoepithelial tumors would all be considered. Metastatic renal cell carcinoma can occasionally be found in the head and neck, though the parotid is an exceptionally rare site.62 Finally, there are some mesenchymal tumors that can have a clear cell phenotype, including Ewing’s/PNET.63
Interestingly, molecular assays can help to distinguish most of the entities in the differential diagnosis above. Clear cell carcinomas were recently found to harbor EWSR1-ATF1 translocations.56, 64 These tumors, however, would be expected to stain with p63 and cytokeratin, unlike the case described above.65 Clear cell mucoepidermoid carcinoma would harbor the MECT1-MAML2 translocation (see above discussion). And, clear cell myoepithelial tumors also harbor EWSR1 rearrangements.66, 67 Thus, coupled with the unique immunoprofile, the presence of an EWSR1 rearrangement is useful diagnostically and will enable the correct management of the patient.68
Case 4
A 45-year-old male presents with a tumor of the sinonasal cavity. Histologically, the tumor has an invasive border, with both stromal and extensive perineural invasion. The tumor had both cribriform and tubular areas, and also a solid component. The tumor is biphasic, with both epithelial and myoepithelial cells on immunohistochemical stains. HPV in situ hybridization was negative. The diagnosis of adenoid cystic carcinoma was made (Figure 6).
Commentary
The differential diagnosis in this case is fairly limited, with the most common entity being adenoid cystic carcinoma. However, a recently described tumor of the sinonasal tract is also included in this differential diagnosis, HPV-associated adenoid cystic-like carcinoma of the sinuses.69 In this setting, an HPV test was useful to rule out this unusual lesion. In the absence of HPV, a diagnosis of adenoid cystic carcinoma can be made.
It has also been recognized that adenoid cystic carcinomas harbor a unique translocation, the MYB-NFIB.29, 70, 71 In this case, which has a fairly straightforward morphology and immunohistochemical staining profile, the translocation test will add very little value. But, this could change in the future, if targeted therapeutic approaches evolve. Because adenoid cystic carcinoma is a relentless malignancy that tends to be difficult to cure,72, 73, 74 there have been some attempts to use targeted therapy in adenoid cystic carcinoma. The first of these was based on the fact that the vast majority of adenoid cystic carcinomas over-express CKIT (CD117) by immunohistochemistry. Early attempts using drugs such as imatinib and dasatinib were not highly successful.75, 76, 77, 78 Further investigation into the molecular biology of adenoid cystic carcinoma revealed why the therapy did not work well. Adenoid cystic carcinomas did not harbor any mutations in the CKIT gene.79, 80, 81 There are currently clinical trials exploring potential novel therapies for adenoid cystic carcinoma with targeted therapies based on the presence of the MYB-NFIB translocation.70, 82, 83 If these therapies prove to be effective in treating this tumor, there may be role in the future for identifying the translocation to triage patients for therapeutic management.
Case 5
A 58-year-old male presents with a cystic mass in the neck, which did not respond to antibiotic therapy. A fine needle aspiration biopsy was done and a diagnosis of metastatic squamous cell carcinoma was made. A p16 stain was positive. Further clinical investigation revealed a small squamous cell carcinoma in the tonsil that was found to be HPV positive. The patient was treated for with radiation and chemotherapy, but subsequently recurred in the neck and then developed new metastatic lesions in the brain. This patient’s tumor was tested for a mutation panel for oncogenes with available targeted therapy approaches. The tumor harbored a PIK3CA mutation and the patient was entered into a clinical trial (Figure 7).
Commentary
Our understanding of the mutational landscape of HNSCC is evolving, but it is now recognized that a number of tumor-associated oncogenes can be mutated in these tumors. Although some of these mutations are rare, others have a higher prevalence. But, even for uncommon mutations, there may be clinical importance, especially in the setting of failed conventional therapies. For example, PIK3CA mutations are seen in ~5–10% of HNSCC.84, 85, 86, 87 Several clinical trials have investigated drugs targeting PIK3CA and have shown some promising results.53, 86, 88, 89 Most studies using targeted therapies for rare mutations are still in the early phases, but it is expected that targeted therapy will become a clinical option for treatment in HNSCC.53, 90
Conclusion
Molecular testing is becoming more and more common in surgical pathology practice. In the head and neck, there are some current and upcoming promising assays for both diagnosis and therapeutic planning. Testing should be performed only in high-value scenarios, where the outcome of the test impacts patient management.
References
Levy BP, Chida MD, Herndon D et al. Molecular testing for treatment of metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: how to implement evidence-based recommendations. Oncologist 2015;20:1175–1181.
Volmar KE, Idowu MO, Souers RJ et al. Molecular testing in anatomic pathology and adherence to guidelines: a college of American pathologists q-probes study of 2230 testing events reported by 26 institutions. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2015;139:1115–1124.
Stein D, Chen C, Ackerly DC . Disruptive innovation in academic medical centers: balancing accountable and academic care. Acad Med 2015;90:594–598.
Hayes DF . Considerations for implementation of cancer molecular diagnostics into clinical care. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book 2016;35:292–296.
Berwick DM, Nolan TW, Whittington J . The triple aim: care, health, and cost. Health Aff Millwood 2008;27:759–769.
Bryan S, Donaldson C . Taking triple aim at the triple aim. Healthc Pap 2016;15:25–30.
Verma A, Bhatia SA . Policy framework for health systems to promote triple aim innovation. Healthc Pap 2016;15:9–23.
Patel K, Presser E, George M et al. Shifting away from fee-for-service: alternative approaches to payment in gastroenterology. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2016;14:497–506.
Filson CP, Hollingsworth JM, Skolarus TA et al. Health care reform in 2010: transforming the delivery system to improve quality of care. World J Urol 2011;29:85–90.
Selevan J, Kindermann D, Pines JM et al. What accountable care organizations can learn from kaiser permanente california’s acute care strategy. Popul Health Manag 2015;18:233–236.
Shaw FE, Asomugha C, Conway P et al. The patient protection and affordable care act: opportunities for prevention and public health. Lancet 2014;384:75–82.
Chen JT, Israel J, Poore S et al. The affordable care act: a primer for plastic surgeons. Plast Reconstr Surg 2014;134:830e–837e.
Ferraro MJ . Effect of diagnosis-related groups on diagnostic methodology in the hospital laboratory. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 4:1986135S–1986142SS.
Wilensky GR, Rossiter LF . Alternative units of payment for physician services: an overview of the issues. Med Care Rev 1986;43:133–156.
Snozek C, Kaleta E, Hernandez JS . Management structure: establishing a laboratory utilization program and tools for utilization management. Clin Chim Acta 2014;427:118–122.
Riley JD, Procop GW, Kottke-Marchant K et al. Improving molecular genetic test utilization through order restriction, test review, and guidance. J Mol Diagn 2015;17:225–229.
Van Cott EM . Laboratory test interpretations and algorithms in utilization management. Clin Chim Acta 2014;427:188–192.
Hu Z, Qian G, Müller S et al. Biomarker quantification by multiplexed quantum dot technology for predicting lymph node metastasis and prognosis in head and neck cancer. Oncotarget 2016;7:44676–44685.
Monteiro de Oliveira Novaes JA, William WN . Prognostic factors, predictive markers and cancer biology: the triad for successful oral cancer chemoprevention. Future Oncol 2016;12:2379–2386.
Wiedemann LM, McCarthy KP, Chan LC . Chromosome rearrangement, oncogene activation, and other clonal events in cancer: their use in molecular diagnostics. J Pathol 1991;163:7–12.
Lebovitz RM, Albrecht S . Molecular biology in the diagnosis and prognosis of solid and lymphoid tumors. Cancer Invest 1992;10:399–416.
Chehab FF . Molecular diagnostics: past, present, and future. Hum Mutat 1993;2:331–337.
Hussaini M . Biomarkers in hematological malignancies: a review of molecular testing in hematopathology. Cancer Control 2015;22:158–166.
Damodaran S, Berger MF, Roy-Chowdhury S . Clinical tumor sequencing: opportunities and challenges for precision cancer medicine. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book 2015;e175–e182.
Bohlander SK, Kakadia PM . DNA repair and chromosomal translocations. Recent Result Cancer Res 2015;200:1–37.
Goyal G, Mehdi SA, Ganti AK . Salivary gland cancers: biology and systemic therapy. Oncology (Williston Park) 2015;29:773–780.
Fonseca FP, Sena-Filho M, Altemani A et al. Molecular signature of salivary gland tumors: potential use as diagnostic and prognostic marker. J Oral Pathol Med 2015;45:101–110.
Carlson J, Licitra L, Locati L et al. Salivary gland cancer: an update on present and emerging therapies. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book 2013;257–263.
Weinreb I . Translocation-associated salivary gland tumors: a review and update. Adv Anat Pathol 2013;20:367–377.
Dahlenfors R, Wedell B, Rundrantz H et al. Translocation11;19q14-21;p12 in a parotid mucoepidermoid carcinoma of a child. Cancer Genet Cytogenet 1995;79:188.
Jin C, Martins C, Jun Y et al. Characterization of chromosome aberrations in salivary gland tumors by FISH, including multicolor COBRA-FISH. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 2001;30:161–167.
Horsman DE, Berean K, Durham JS . Translocation 11;19q21;p131 in mucoepidermoid carcinoma of salivary gland. Cancer Genet Cytogenet 1995;80:165–166.
Nordkvist A, Gustafsson H, Juberg-Ode M et al. Recurrent rearrangements of 11q14-22 in mucoepidermoid carcinoma. Cancer Genet Cytogenet 1994;74:77–83.
Plönes T, Engel-Riedel W, Stoebel E et al. Molecular pathology and personalized medicine: the dawn of a new era in companion diagnostics-practical considerations about companion diagnostics for non-small-cell-lung-cancer. J Pers Med 2016;6:pii: E3.
Jørgensen JT . The importance of predictive biomarkers in oncology drug development. Expert Rev Mol Diagn 2016;16:1–3.
Luo D, Smith JA, Meadows MA et al. A quantitative assessment of factors affecting the technological development and adoption of companion diagnostics. Front Genet 2015;6:357.
Caliendo AM, Hanson KE . Point-counterpoint: the fda has a role in regulation of laboratory-developed tests. J Clin Microbiol 2016;54:829–833.
Miller VA . FDA regulation of laboratory-developed tests. Clin Adv Hematol Oncol 2016;14:305–306.
Å vajdler M, KaÅ¡pÃrková J, Hadravský L et al. Origin of cystic squamous cell carcinoma metastases in head and neck lymph nodes: addition of EBV testing improves diagnostic accuracy. Pathol Res Pract 2016;212:524–531.
Deng Z, Uehara T, Maeda H et al. Epstein-Barr virus and human papillomavirus infections and genotype distribution in head and neck cancers. PLoS One 2014;9:e113702.
Carpenter DH, El-Mofty SK, Lewis JS . Undifferentiated carcinoma of the oropharynx: a human papillomavirus-associated tumor with a favorable prognosis. Mod Pathol 2011;24:1306–1312.
Zeitlin R, Nguyen HP, Rafferty D et al. Advancements in the management of HPV-associated head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. J. Clin Med 2015;4:822–831.
Oosthuizen JC, Kinsella JB . Is treatment de-escalation a reality in HPV related oropharyngeal cancer? Surgeon 2016;14:180–183.
Wu C-C, Horowitz DP, Deutsch I et al. De-escalation of radiation dose for human papillomavirus-positive oropharyngeal head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: a case report and preclinical and clinical literature review. Oncol Lett 2016;11:141–149.
Sablin M-P, Dubot C, Klijanienko J et al. Identification of new candidate therapeutic target genes in head and neck squamous cell carcinomas. Oncotarget 2016;26;7:47418–47430.
Schmidt F, Efferth T . Tumor heterogeneity, single-cell sequencing, and drug resistance. Pharmaceuticals (Basel) 2016;9:pii: E33.
Chakravarthi BVSK, Nepal S, Varambally S . Genomic and epigenomic alterations in cancer. Am J Pathol 2016;186:1724–1735.
Schmidt KT, Chau CH, Price DK et al. Precision oncology medicine: the clinical relevance of patient specific biomarkers used to optimize cancer treatment. J Clin Pharmacol 2016;56:1484–1499.
Harismendy O, Schwab RB, Bao L et al. Detection of low prevalence somatic mutations in solid tumors with ultra-deep targeted sequencing. Genome Biol 2011;12:R124.
McCain J . The cancer genome atlas: new weapon in old war? Biotechnol Healthc 2006;3:46–51B.
Collins FS, Barker AD . Mapping the cancer genome pinpointing the genes involved in cancer will help chart a new course across the complex landscape of human malignancies. Sci Am 2007;296:50–57.
Heng HHQ . Cancer genome sequencing: the challenges ahead. Bioessays 2007;29:783–794.
Tinhofer I, Budach V, Saki M et al. Targeted next-generation sequencing of locally advanced squamous cell carcinomas of the head and neck reveals druggable targets for improving adjuvant chemoradiation. Eur J Cancer 2016;57:78–86.
Ishibashi K, Ito Y, Masaki A et al. Warthin-like mucoepidermoid carcinoma: a combined study of fluorescence in situ hybridization and whole-slide imaging. Am J Surg Pathol 2015;39:1479–1487.
Wade TV, Livolsi VA, Montone KT et al. A cytohistologic correlation of mucoepidermoid carcinoma: emphasizing the rare oncocytic variant. Patholog Res Int 2011;2011:135796.
Tanguay J, Weinreb I . What the EWSR1-ATF1 fusion has taught us about hyalinizing clear cell carcinoma. Head Neck Pathol 2013;7:28–34.
Möller E, Stenman G, Mandahl N et al. POU5F1, encoding a key regulator of stem cell pluripotency, is fused to EWSR1 in hidradenoma of the skin and mucoepidermoid carcinoma of the salivary glands. J Pathol 2008;215:78–86.
Stenman G . Fusion oncogenes in salivary gland tumors: molecular and clinical consequences. Head Neck Pathol 2013;7 Suppl 1:S12–S19.
Kass JI, Lee SC, Abberbock S et al. Adenosquamous carcinoma of the head and neck: molecular analysis using CRTC-MAML FISH and survival comparison with paired conventional squamous cell carcinoma. Laryngoscope 2015;125:E371–E376.
Rotellini M, Paglierani M, Pepi M et al. MAML2 rearrangement in Warthin’s tumour: a fluorescent in situ hybridisation study of metaplastic variants. J Oral Pathol Med 2012;41:615–620.
Skálová A, Vanecek T, Simpson RH et al. CRTC1-MAML2 and CRTC3-MAML2 fusions were not detected in metaplastic Warthin tumor and metaplastic pleomorphic adenoma of salivary glands. Am J Surg Pathol 2013;37:1743–1750.
Udager AM, Rungta SA . Metastatic renal cell carcinoma, clear cell type, of the parotid gland: a case report, review of literature, and proposed algorithmic approach to salivary gland clear cell neoplasms in fine-needle aspiration biopsies. Diagn Cytopathol 2014;42:974–983.
Hung YP, Fletcher CDM, Hornick JL . Evaluation of NKX2-2 expression in round cell sarcomas and other tumors with EWSR1 rearrangement: imperfect specificity for Ewing sarcoma. Mod Pathol 2016;29:370–380.
Antonescu CR, Katabi N, Zhang L et al. EWSR1-ATF1 fusion is a novel and consistent finding in hyalinizing clear-cell carcinoma of salivary gland. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 2011;50:559–570.
Bilodeau EA, Hoschar AP, Barnes EL et al. Clear cell carcinoma and clear cell odontogenic carcinoma: a comparative clinicopathologic and immunohistochemical study. Head Neck Pathol 2011;5:101–107.
Skálová A, Weinreb I, Hyrcza M et al. Clear cell myoepithelial carcinoma of salivary glands showing EWSR1 rearrangement: molecular analysis of 94 salivary gland carcinomas with prominent clear cell component. Am J Surg Pathol 2015;39:338–348.
Brandal P, Panagopoulos I, Bjerkehagen B et al. Detection of a t1;22q23;q12 translocation leading to an EWSR1-PBX1 fusion gene in a myoepithelioma. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 2008;47:558–564.
Bishop JA, Alaggio R, Zhang L et al. Adamantinoma-like Ewing family tumors of the head and neck: a pitfall in the differential diagnosis of basaloid and myoepithelial carcinomas. Am J Surg Pathol 2015;39:1267–1274.
Bishop JA, Ogawa T, Stelow EB et al. Human papillomavirus-related carcinoma with adenoid cystic-like features: a peculiar variant of head and neck cancer restricted to the sinonasal tract. Am J Surg Pathol 2013;37:836–844.
Ferrarotto R, Heymach JV, Glisson BS . MYB-fusions and other potential actionable targets in adenoid cystic carcinoma. Curr Opin Oncol 2016;28:195–200.
Brayer KJ, Frerich CA, Kang H et al. Recurrent fusions in myb and mybl1 define a common, transcription factor-driven oncogenic pathway in salivary gland adenoid cystic carcinoma. Cancer Discov 2016;6:176–187.
Coca-Pelaz A, Rodrigo JP, Bradley PJ et al. Adenoid cystic carcinoma of the head and neck—An update. Oral Oncol 2015;51:652–661.
Papaspyrou G, Hoch S, Rinaldo A et al. Chemotherapy and targeted therapy in adenoid cystic carcinoma of the head and neck: a review. Head Neck 2011;33:905–911.
Seong SY, Hyun DW, Kim YS et al. Treatment outcomes of sinonasal adenoid cystic carcinoma: 30 cases from a single institution. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2014;42:e171–e175.
Wong SJ, Karrison T, Hayes DN et al. Phase II trial of dasatinib for recurrent or metastatic c-KIT expressing adenoid cystic carcinoma and for nonadenoid cystic malignant salivary tumors. Ann Oncol 2016;27:318–323.
Ghosal N, Mais K, Shenjere P et al. Phase II study of cisplatin and imatinib in advanced salivary adenoid cystic carcinoma. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2011;49:510–515.
Lin C-H, Yen RF, Jeng YM et al. Unexpected rapid progression of metastatic adenoid cystic carcinoma during treatment with imatinib mesylate. Head Neck 2005;27:1022–1027.
Pfeffer MR, Talmi Y, Catane R et al. A phase II study of Imatinib for advanced adenoid cystic carcinoma of head and neck salivary glands. Oral Oncol 2007;43:33–36.
Moskaluk CA, Frierson HF, El-Naggar AK et al. P A C-kit gene mutations in adenoid cystic carcinoma are rare. Mod Pathol 2010;23:905–906 author reply906–7.
Sung J-Y, Ahn HK, Kwon JE et al. Reappraisal of KIT mutation in adenoid cystic carcinomas of the salivary gland. J Oral Pathol Med 2012;41:415–423.
Wetterskog D, Wilkerson PM, Rodrigues DN et al. Mutation profiling of adenoid cystic carcinomas from multiple anatomical sites identifies mutations in the RAS pathway, but no KIT mutations. Histopathology 2013;62:543–550.
Chae YK, Chung SY, Davis AA et al. Adenoid cystic carcinoma: current therapy and potential therapeutic advances based on genomic profiling. Oncotarget 2015;6:37117–37134.
Dillon PM, Chakraborty S, Moskaluk CA et al. Adenoid cystic carcinoma: a review of recent advances, molecular targets, and clinical trials. Head Neck 2016;38:620–627.
Mountzios G, Rampias T, Psyrri A . The mutational spectrum of squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck: targetable genetic events and clinical impact. Ann Oncol 2014;25:1889–1900.
Sun W, Califano JA . Sequencing the head and neck cancer genome: implications for therapy. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2014;1333:33–42.
Lim SM, Park HS, Kim S et al. Next-generation sequencing reveals somatic mutations that confer exceptional response to everolimus. Oncotarget 2016;7:10547–10556.
Al-Amri AM, Vatte C, Cyrus C et al. Novel mutations of PIK3CA gene in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Cancer Biomark 2016;16:377–383.
Chau NG, Li YY, Jo VY et al. Incorporation of next-generation sequencing into routine clinical care to direct treatment of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res 2016;22:2939–2949.
Geiger JL, Bauman JE, Gibson MK et al. Phase II trial of everolimus in patients with previously treated recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Head Neck 2016;38:1759–1764.
Wirtz ED, Hoshino D, Maldonado AT et al. Response of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma cells carrying PIK3CA mutations to selected targeted therapies. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2015;141:543–549.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The author declares no conflict of interest.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hunt, J. Applications of molecular testing in surgical pathology of the head and neck. Mod Pathol 30 (Suppl 1), S104–S111 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/modpathol.2016.192
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/modpathol.2016.192