{"title":"CREM在creb重排间充质肿瘤及其模拟瘤中的免疫组织化学评价。","authors":"Shogo Nishino, Hirokazu Sugino, Yasuhito Arai, Natsuko Hama, Tatsuhiro Shibata, Shuhei Osaki, Seiichi Yoshimoto, Yasushi Yatabe, Taisuke Mori, Akihiko Yoshida","doi":"10.1007/s00428-025-04207-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Fusion genes between the FET (EWSR1/FUS) and CREB (CREB1, ATF1, CREM) families characterize many tumor types, including mesenchymal entities. Herein, we tested the diagnostic utility of CREM (C-terminus) immunohistochemistry using 51 CREB-rearranged mesenchymal tumors and 159 tumors of 14 mimicking entities. Staining was considered positive if nuclear staining of moderate or strong intensity was observed in at least 10% of the tumor cells. Among the 51 CREB-rearranged tumors, CREM was at least focally positive in 39 tumors (76.5%), diffusely (≥ 50%) positive in 31 tumors (60.8%), and diffuse strong staining was observed in 23 tumors (45.1%). Diffuse strong reactivity was observed in nearly all angiomatoid fibrous histiocytoma (11 of 12 tumors), intracranial FET::CREB mesenchymal neoplasms (2 of 2 tumors), and unclassifiable sarcomas (2 of 2 tumors, including 1 case with SMARCA2::CREM). However, the positivity was more limited in clear cell sarcoma (15 of 20 tumors), keratin-positive malignant FET::CREB tumors in the abdomen (5 of 8 tumors), and gastrointestinal neuroectodermal tumors (4 of 7 tumors). Two separately evaluated CRTC1-rearranged tumors (CRTC1::TRIM11 and CRTC1::SS18) demonstrated diffuse strong positivity. Among the 159 tumors in the comparison cohort, CREM was at least focally positive in 33 (20.8%) tumors, diffusely positive in 19 tumors (11.9%), and diffusely and strongly positive in 5 tumors (3.1%). CREM demonstrated moderate sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of CREB-rearranged mesenchymal tumors as a whole cohort, and its overall utility in predicting CREB fusion is limited. However, CREM staining may be useful in a few specific contexts, such as when angiomatoid fibrous histiocytoma is suspected.</p>","PeriodicalId":23514,"journal":{"name":"Virchows Archiv","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Immunohistochemical evaluation of CREM in CREB-rearranged mesenchymal tumors and their mimics.\",\"authors\":\"Shogo Nishino, Hirokazu Sugino, Yasuhito Arai, Natsuko Hama, Tatsuhiro Shibata, Shuhei Osaki, Seiichi Yoshimoto, Yasushi Yatabe, Taisuke Mori, Akihiko Yoshida\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00428-025-04207-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Fusion genes between the FET (EWSR1/FUS) and CREB (CREB1, ATF1, CREM) families characterize many tumor types, including mesenchymal entities. Herein, we tested the diagnostic utility of CREM (C-terminus) immunohistochemistry using 51 CREB-rearranged mesenchymal tumors and 159 tumors of 14 mimicking entities. Staining was considered positive if nuclear staining of moderate or strong intensity was observed in at least 10% of the tumor cells. Among the 51 CREB-rearranged tumors, CREM was at least focally positive in 39 tumors (76.5%), diffusely (≥ 50%) positive in 31 tumors (60.8%), and diffuse strong staining was observed in 23 tumors (45.1%). Diffuse strong reactivity was observed in nearly all angiomatoid fibrous histiocytoma (11 of 12 tumors), intracranial FET::CREB mesenchymal neoplasms (2 of 2 tumors), and unclassifiable sarcomas (2 of 2 tumors, including 1 case with SMARCA2::CREM). However, the positivity was more limited in clear cell sarcoma (15 of 20 tumors), keratin-positive malignant FET::CREB tumors in the abdomen (5 of 8 tumors), and gastrointestinal neuroectodermal tumors (4 of 7 tumors). Two separately evaluated CRTC1-rearranged tumors (CRTC1::TRIM11 and CRTC1::SS18) demonstrated diffuse strong positivity. Among the 159 tumors in the comparison cohort, CREM was at least focally positive in 33 (20.8%) tumors, diffusely positive in 19 tumors (11.9%), and diffusely and strongly positive in 5 tumors (3.1%). CREM demonstrated moderate sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of CREB-rearranged mesenchymal tumors as a whole cohort, and its overall utility in predicting CREB fusion is limited. However, CREM staining may be useful in a few specific contexts, such as when angiomatoid fibrous histiocytoma is suspected.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23514,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Virchows Archiv\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Virchows Archiv\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-025-04207-1\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PATHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Virchows Archiv","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-025-04207-1","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
FET (EWSR1/FUS)和CREB (CREB1, ATF1, CREM)家族之间的融合基因表征了许多肿瘤类型,包括间充质实体。在此,我们使用51个creb重排的间充质肿瘤和14个模拟实体的159个肿瘤来测试CREM (c端)免疫组织化学的诊断效用。如果在至少10%的肿瘤细胞中观察到中等或强强度的核染色,则认为染色阳性。51例creb重排肿瘤中,CREM至少局灶阳性39例(76.5%),弥漫性阳性31例(60.8%),弥漫性强染色23例(45.1%)。在几乎所有的血管瘤样纤维组织细胞瘤(12个肿瘤中的11个)、颅内FET::CREB间质肿瘤(2个肿瘤中的2个)和无法分类的肉瘤(2个肿瘤中的2个,包括1例SMARCA2::CREM)中均观察到弥漫性强反应性。然而,在透明细胞肉瘤(20例肿瘤中有15例)、腹部角蛋白阳性的恶性FET::CREB肿瘤(8例肿瘤中有5例)和胃肠道神经外表皮肿瘤(7例肿瘤中有4例)中,阳性表达更为有限。两个单独评估的CRTC1重排肿瘤(CRTC1::TRIM11和CRTC1::SS18)显示弥漫性强阳性。159例肿瘤中,至少局灶阳性33例(20.8%),弥漫性阳性19例(11.9%),弥漫性及强阳性5例(3.1%)。作为一个整体队列,CREM在诊断CREB重排间充质肿瘤方面表现出中等的敏感性和特异性,其在预测CREB融合方面的总体效用有限。然而,CREM染色在一些特殊情况下可能是有用的,例如当怀疑是血管瘤样纤维组织细胞瘤时。
Immunohistochemical evaluation of CREM in CREB-rearranged mesenchymal tumors and their mimics.
Fusion genes between the FET (EWSR1/FUS) and CREB (CREB1, ATF1, CREM) families characterize many tumor types, including mesenchymal entities. Herein, we tested the diagnostic utility of CREM (C-terminus) immunohistochemistry using 51 CREB-rearranged mesenchymal tumors and 159 tumors of 14 mimicking entities. Staining was considered positive if nuclear staining of moderate or strong intensity was observed in at least 10% of the tumor cells. Among the 51 CREB-rearranged tumors, CREM was at least focally positive in 39 tumors (76.5%), diffusely (≥ 50%) positive in 31 tumors (60.8%), and diffuse strong staining was observed in 23 tumors (45.1%). Diffuse strong reactivity was observed in nearly all angiomatoid fibrous histiocytoma (11 of 12 tumors), intracranial FET::CREB mesenchymal neoplasms (2 of 2 tumors), and unclassifiable sarcomas (2 of 2 tumors, including 1 case with SMARCA2::CREM). However, the positivity was more limited in clear cell sarcoma (15 of 20 tumors), keratin-positive malignant FET::CREB tumors in the abdomen (5 of 8 tumors), and gastrointestinal neuroectodermal tumors (4 of 7 tumors). Two separately evaluated CRTC1-rearranged tumors (CRTC1::TRIM11 and CRTC1::SS18) demonstrated diffuse strong positivity. Among the 159 tumors in the comparison cohort, CREM was at least focally positive in 33 (20.8%) tumors, diffusely positive in 19 tumors (11.9%), and diffusely and strongly positive in 5 tumors (3.1%). CREM demonstrated moderate sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of CREB-rearranged mesenchymal tumors as a whole cohort, and its overall utility in predicting CREB fusion is limited. However, CREM staining may be useful in a few specific contexts, such as when angiomatoid fibrous histiocytoma is suspected.
期刊介绍:
Manuscripts of original studies reinforcing the evidence base of modern diagnostic pathology, using immunocytochemical, molecular and ultrastructural techniques, will be welcomed. In addition, papers on critical evaluation of diagnostic criteria but also broadsheets and guidelines with a solid evidence base will be considered. Consideration will also be given to reports of work in other fields relevant to the understanding of human pathology as well as manuscripts on the application of new methods and techniques in pathology. Submission of purely experimental articles is discouraged but manuscripts on experimental work applicable to diagnostic pathology are welcomed. Biomarker studies are welcomed but need to abide by strict rules (e.g. REMARK) of adequate sample size and relevant marker choice. Single marker studies on limited patient series without validated application will as a rule not be considered. Case reports will only be considered when they provide substantial new information with an impact on understanding disease or diagnostic practice.