[Detection of EWSR1 gene rearrangement by fluorescence in situ hybridization in bone and soft tissue tumors: clinical application evaluation and atypical signal analysis].

Abstract

Objective: To investigate the clinical application of EWSR1 gene rearrangement by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) in bone and soft tissue tumors and to analyze the cases with atypical signal pattern. Methods: The cases detected for EWSR1 gene rearrangement by FISH in Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, Capital Medical University from 2014 to 2021 were collected, and the value of detecting EWSR1 gene rearrangement for diagnosing bone and soft tissue tumors was analyzed. The cases with atypical positive signals were further analyzed by next generation sequencing (NGS). Results: FISH using EWSR1 break-apart probe kit was successfully performed in 97% (205/211) of cases, 6 cases failed. Four of the 6 failures were due to improper decalcification, 1 case due to signal overlap caused by thick slices, and 1 case due to signal amplification and disorder. EWSR1 gene rearrangements were positive in 122 cases (122/205, 59%), atypical positive signal in 8 cases (8/205, 4%), and negative in 75 cases (75/205, 37%). In cases testing positive, the percentage of positive cells ranged from 34% to 98%, with 120 cases (120/122, 98%) showing a positive cell percentage greater than 50%. Among the 205 successfully tested cases, 156 cases were histologically diagnosed as Ewing's sarcoma, of which 110 were positive (110/156, 71%), 7 were atypical positive (7/156, 4%), and 39 were negative (39/156, 25%). Nine cases were histologically diagnosed as clear cell sarcoma of soft tissue, of which 6 were positive (6/9), 1 was atypical positive (1/9), and 2 were negative (2/9). Five cases were histologically diagnosed as extraskeletal myxoid chondrosarcoma, of which 2 were positive (2/5) and 3 were negative (3/5). Three cases were histologically diagnosed as angiomatoid fibrous histiocytoma, of which 2 were positive (2/3) and 1 was negative (1/3). Two cases were histologically diagnosed as myoepithelioma of soft tissue, of which 1 was positive (1/2) and 1 was negative (1/2). One case was histologically diagnosed as olfactory neuroblastoma with a positive result. The 29 other tumor cases including osteosarcoma, synovial sarcoma, and malignant melanoma and others were all negative. Basing on histology as the standard for diagnosis and considering atypical positive cases as negative, comparing with the 29 cases of other tumors as control group, the sensitivity for diagnosing Ewing's sarcoma through the detection of EWSR1 gene rearrangement was 71%, and the specificity was 100%; the sensitivity for diagnosing clear cell sarcoma of soft tissue was 67%, and the specificity was 100%; the sensitivity for diagnosing extraskeletal myxoid chondrosarcoma was 40%, and the specificity was 100%; the sensitivity for diagnosing angiomatoid fibrous histiocytoma was 67%, and the specificity was 100%; the sensitivity for diagnosing myoepithelioma of soft tissue was 50%, and the specificity was 100%; the sensitivity for diagnosing olfactory neuroblastoma was 100%, and the specificity was 100%. Four of 8 cases with atypical positive signals analyzed by NGS showed EWSR1 rearrangement, including EWSR1::FLI1 in one case of Ewing sarcoma, EWSR1::NFATC2 in one case of EWSR1::NFATC2-rearranged sarcoma, EWSR1::ATF1 in one case of clear cell sarcoma of soft tissue and EWSR1::NR4A3 in one case of extraskeletal myxoid chondrosarcoma. Conclusions: Detection of EWSR1 rearrangement by FISH is of utmost significance in the diagnosis of bone and soft tissue tumors. Cases with atypical positive signals should be further scrutinized, correlating with their histomorphology and verifying by NGS if necessary.