Achim Weber

Background Hepatocellular adenoma (HCA) is a rare liver tumour, which can have atypical morphological features such as cytological atypia, pseudoglandular architecture, and altered reticulin framework. Little is known about the genetic and epigenetic alterations of such HCAs and whether they show the alterations classically found in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) or in HCA without atypical morphology. Methods We analysed five HCAs with atypical morphological features and one HCA with transition to HCC. Every tumour was subtyped by immunohistochemistry, sequenced by a targeted NGS panel, and analysed on a DNA methylation microarray. Results Subtyping of the five HCAs with atypical features revealed two β‐catenin mutated HCA (b‐HCA), two β‐catenin mutated inflammatory HCA (b‐IHCA), and one sonic hedgehog activated HCA (shHCA). None of them showed mutations typically found in HCC, such as, e.g. TERT or TP53 mutations. The epigenomic pattern of HCAs with atypical morphological features clustered with reference data for HCAs without atypical morphological features but not with HCC. Similarly, phyloepigenetic trees using the DNA methylation data reproducibly showed that HCAs with morphological atypia are much more similar to nonmalignant samples than to malignant samples. Finally, atypical HCAs showed no relevant copy number variations (CNV). Conclusion In our series, mutational, DNA methylation, as well as CNV analyses, supported a relationship of atypical HCAs with nonatypical HCAs rather than with HCC. Therefore, in cases with difficult differential diagnosis between HCC and HCA, it might be advisable to perform targeted sequencing and/or combined methylation/copy number profiling.

Immunohistochemistry for hepatitis E virus (HEV) ORF2 (capsid) protein is a powerful tool for tissue‐based diagnosis of hepatitis E, particularly useful in evaluating abnormal liver values in immunocompromised patients. We report here a previously unobserved reactivity of the HEV ORF2 antibody to human cytomegalovirus (CMV) proteins and contrast the staining patterns encountered in HEV and CMV infection, respectively. As part of a routine diagnostic work‐up, the liver biopsy of an immunocompromised patient with elevated liver values was examined histologically for infection with viruses including CMV and HEV. Cytopathic changes were found, suggestive of CMV infection, which was confirmed by immunohistochemistry. Surprisingly, reactivity of a portion of CMV‐infected cells with a mouse monoclonal antibody (clone 1E6) against HEV ORF2 protein was also detected. This observation prompted a screening of 22 further specimens (including liver, gastrointestinal, lung, brain and placental biopsies) with confirmed CMV infection/reactivation. Immunoreactivity of CMV‐infected cells with HEV ORF2 antibody was observed in 18 of 23 specimens. While the HEV ORF2 antibody showed cytoplasmic, nuclear and canalicular positivity in hepatitis E cases, positivity in CMV‐infected cells was limited to the nucleus. In conclusion, the HEV ORF2 antibody (clone 1E6) shows unexpected immunoreactivity against CMV proteins. In contrast to the hepatitis E staining pattern with cytoplasmic, nuclear and occasional canalicular positivity, reactivity in CMV‐infected cells is restricted to the nucleus. Awareness of this cross‐reactivity and knowledge of the differences in staining patterns will prevent pathologists from misinterpreting positive HEV ORF2 immunohistochemistry in liver specimens.