Comparison of Molecular Testing Methodologies for CIC-Rearranged Sarcomas.

Selene C Koo, Maria Cardenas, Patricia Stow, Jennifer Neary, David A Wheeler, Zonggao Shi, Larissa V Furtado
{"title":"Comparison of Molecular Testing Methodologies for CIC-Rearranged Sarcomas.","authors":"Selene C Koo, Maria Cardenas, Patricia Stow, Jennifer Neary, David A Wheeler, Zonggao Shi, Larissa V Furtado","doi":"10.5858/arpa.2024-0407-OA","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context.—: </strong>Molecular detection of a capicua transcriptional repressor (CIC) rearrangement is critical for diagnosing CIC-rearranged sarcoma (CIC-RS) but is analytically challenging.</p><p><strong>Objective.—: </strong>To compare the technical performance of fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), whole-transcriptome sequencing (RNA-seq), and DNA methylation profiling for CIC-rearrangement detection in a large, mainly pediatric cohort.</p><p><strong>Design.—: </strong>The study cohort consisted of 44 distinct patient tumors that were positive, equivocal, or suggestive for CIC rearrangement, including 18 central nervous system and 26 extra-central nervous system solid tumors. Forty tumors underwent FISH to detect CIC rearrangement, 31 underwent transcriptome sequencing, and 34 underwent methylation array analysis. Results for tumors tested by multiple testing modalities were compared.</p><p><strong>Results.—: </strong>Fusions were detected in 27 cases: CIC::double homeobox 4 (DUX4) (n = 15), CIC::NUT midline carcinoma family member 1 (NUTM1) (n = 4), CIC::leucine twenty homeobox (LEUTX) (n = 3), CIC::NUT family member 2B (NUTM2B) (n = 1), ataxin 1 (ATXN1)::NUTM1 (n = 1), ATXN1::NUT family member 2A/B (NUTM2A/B) (n = 1), CIC::DUX4 proximity effect (n = 1), and dedicator of cytokinesis 1 (DOCK1)::DUX4 (n = 1). Twenty-five tumors were tested by all 3 testing modalities. Apparent false-negative rates were 20% (3 of 15) for CIC FISH, 14% (2 of 14) for transcriptome sequencing, and 14% (2 of 14) for methylation array analysis. Both false-negative methylation array results had CIC::LEUTX fusion.</p><p><strong>Conclusions.—: </strong>Awareness of molecular testing pitfalls in the appropriate detection of CIC rearrangement is critical. Any CIC FISH result may need to be further confirmed, either with unequivocal immunohistochemical support or by another molecular method. A positive RNA-seq or methylation array analysis result may be sufficient evidence for a diagnosis of CIC-RS in the appropriate histologic context. A negative or inconclusive/unclassified RNA-seq or methylation array analysis result in a tumor with high initial suspicion for CIC-RS likely requires careful reevaluation.</p>","PeriodicalId":93883,"journal":{"name":"Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2024-0407-OA","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Context.—: Molecular detection of a capicua transcriptional repressor (CIC) rearrangement is critical for diagnosing CIC-rearranged sarcoma (CIC-RS) but is analytically challenging.

Objective.—: To compare the technical performance of fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), whole-transcriptome sequencing (RNA-seq), and DNA methylation profiling for CIC-rearrangement detection in a large, mainly pediatric cohort.

Design.—: The study cohort consisted of 44 distinct patient tumors that were positive, equivocal, or suggestive for CIC rearrangement, including 18 central nervous system and 26 extra-central nervous system solid tumors. Forty tumors underwent FISH to detect CIC rearrangement, 31 underwent transcriptome sequencing, and 34 underwent methylation array analysis. Results for tumors tested by multiple testing modalities were compared.

Results.—: Fusions were detected in 27 cases: CIC::double homeobox 4 (DUX4) (n = 15), CIC::NUT midline carcinoma family member 1 (NUTM1) (n = 4), CIC::leucine twenty homeobox (LEUTX) (n = 3), CIC::NUT family member 2B (NUTM2B) (n = 1), ataxin 1 (ATXN1)::NUTM1 (n = 1), ATXN1::NUT family member 2A/B (NUTM2A/B) (n = 1), CIC::DUX4 proximity effect (n = 1), and dedicator of cytokinesis 1 (DOCK1)::DUX4 (n = 1). Twenty-five tumors were tested by all 3 testing modalities. Apparent false-negative rates were 20% (3 of 15) for CIC FISH, 14% (2 of 14) for transcriptome sequencing, and 14% (2 of 14) for methylation array analysis. Both false-negative methylation array results had CIC::LEUTX fusion.

Conclusions.—: Awareness of molecular testing pitfalls in the appropriate detection of CIC rearrangement is critical. Any CIC FISH result may need to be further confirmed, either with unequivocal immunohistochemical support or by another molecular method. A positive RNA-seq or methylation array analysis result may be sufficient evidence for a diagnosis of CIC-RS in the appropriate histologic context. A negative or inconclusive/unclassified RNA-seq or methylation array analysis result in a tumor with high initial suspicion for CIC-RS likely requires careful reevaluation.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信