Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2017 Oct 1.
Published in final edited form as: Gynecol Oncol. 2016 Jul 14;143(1):46–53. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2016.07.090

Table 3. Discordant cases according to ProMisE subclassfication.

Case Specimen Pathology MMR IHC POLE p53 Initial Assignment Reassessment Final ProMisE Retest
1 Diagnostic CAH + gr 1 EM intact no mut abn p53 abn Retest: No POLE mut found p53 abn Discordant
Hysterectomy gr 1 EM, stage IB intact P286S* abn POLE EDM Retest validates POLE EDM
2 Diagnostic gr 2 EM MSH6 loss no mut wt MMR-D Retest: Δ to intact p53 wt Concordant
Hysterectomy gr 2 EM, stage IB intact no mut wt p53 wt Retest: confirms intact p53 wt
3 Diagnostic gr 1 EM MSH2/MSH6 loss no mut wt MMR-D Retest: changed to intact p53 wt Concordant
Hysterectomy gr 2 EM, stage IA intact no mut wt p53 wt Retest confirms intact p53 wt
4 Diagnostic gr 3 undiff MSH2/MSH6 loss P441L abn MMR-D Retest confirms MSH2/MSH6 loss MMR-D Concordant
Hysterectomy gr 3 SC, stage IB intact P441L abn POLE EDM Retest:Δ to MSH2/MSH6 loss MMR-D
5 Diagnostic gr 1 EM intact no mut wt p53 wt Retest confirms intact p53 wt Discordant
Hysterectomy gr 3 EM, stage IB MLH1/PMS2 loss no mut wt MMR-D Retest confirms loss of MLH1 MMR-D
6 Diagnostic gr 1 EM intact P286R wt POLE EDM Retest validates POLE EDM Discordant
Hysterectomy gr 1 EM, stage IA intact no mut wt p53 wt Retest: No POLE mut found p53 wt