TFEB融合变异的临床病理和分子分析揭示了TFEB易位性肾细胞癌(RCCs)的新成员

Q. Xia, Xiao-tong Wang, R. Fang, Zhe Wang, Ming Zhao, Hong Chen, N. Chen, X. Teng, Xuan Wang, Xue Wei, S. Ye, Rui Li, Heng‐hui Ma, Zhen‐feng Lu, Xiao‐jun Zhou, Q. Rao
{"title":"TFEB融合变异的临床病理和分子分析揭示了TFEB易位性肾细胞癌(RCCs)的新成员","authors":"Q. Xia, Xiao-tong Wang, R. Fang, Zhe Wang, Ming Zhao, Hong Chen, N. Chen, X. Teng, Xuan Wang, Xue Wei, S. Ye, Rui Li, Heng‐hui Ma, Zhen‐feng Lu, Xiao‐jun Zhou, Q. Rao","doi":"10.1097/PAS.0000000000001408","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text. Xp11 renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with different gene fusions may have different clinicopathologic features. We sought to identify variant fusions in TFEB translocation RCC. A total of 31 cases of TFEB RCCs were selected for the current study; MALAT1-TFEB fusion was identified in 25 cases (81%, 25/31) using fusion probes. The remaining 6 cases (19%, 6/31) were further analyzed by RNA sequencing and 5 of them were detected with TFEB-associated gene fusions, including 2 ACTB-TFEB, 1 EWSR1-TFEB, 1 CLTC-TFEB, and 1 potential PPP1R10-TFEB (a paracentric inversion of the TFEB gene, consistent with “negative” TFEB split FISH result, and advising a potential diagnostic pitfall in detecting TFEB gene rearrangement). Four of the 5 fusion transcripts were successfully validated by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction and Sanger sequencing. Morphologically, approximately one third (29%, 9/31) of TFEB RCCs showed typical biphasic morphology. The remaining two thirds of the cases (71%, 22/31) exhibited nonspecific morphology, with nested, sheet-like, or papillary architecture, resembling other types of renal neoplasms, such as clear cell RCC, Xp11 RCC, perivascular epithelioid cell tumor (PEComa), or papillary RCC. Although cases bearing a MALAT1-TFEB fusion demonstrated variable morphologies, all 9 cases featuring typical biphasic morphology were associated with MALAT1-TFEB genotype. Accordingly, typical biphasic morphology suggests MALAT1-TFEB fusion, whereas atypical morphology did not suggest the specific type of fusion. Isolated or clustered eosinophilic cells were a common feature in TFEB RCCs, which may be a useful morphology diagnostic clue for TFEB RCCs. Clinicopathologic variables assessment showed that necrosis was the only morphologic feature that correlated with the aggressive behavior of TFEB RCC (P=0.004). In summary, our study expands the genomic spectrum and the clinicopathologic features of TFEB RCCs, and highlights the challenges of diagnosis and the importance of subtyping of this tumor by combining morphology and multiple molecular techniques.","PeriodicalId":275221,"journal":{"name":"The American Journal of Surgical Pathology","volume":"117 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"31","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinicopathologic and Molecular Analysis of the TFEB Fusion Variant Reveals New Members of TFEB Translocation Renal Cell Carcinomas (RCCs)\",\"authors\":\"Q. Xia, Xiao-tong Wang, R. Fang, Zhe Wang, Ming Zhao, Hong Chen, N. Chen, X. Teng, Xuan Wang, Xue Wei, S. Ye, Rui Li, Heng‐hui Ma, Zhen‐feng Lu, Xiao‐jun Zhou, Q. Rao\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/PAS.0000000000001408\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text. Xp11 renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with different gene fusions may have different clinicopathologic features. We sought to identify variant fusions in TFEB translocation RCC. A total of 31 cases of TFEB RCCs were selected for the current study; MALAT1-TFEB fusion was identified in 25 cases (81%, 25/31) using fusion probes. The remaining 6 cases (19%, 6/31) were further analyzed by RNA sequencing and 5 of them were detected with TFEB-associated gene fusions, including 2 ACTB-TFEB, 1 EWSR1-TFEB, 1 CLTC-TFEB, and 1 potential PPP1R10-TFEB (a paracentric inversion of the TFEB gene, consistent with “negative” TFEB split FISH result, and advising a potential diagnostic pitfall in detecting TFEB gene rearrangement). Four of the 5 fusion transcripts were successfully validated by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction and Sanger sequencing. Morphologically, approximately one third (29%, 9/31) of TFEB RCCs showed typical biphasic morphology. The remaining two thirds of the cases (71%, 22/31) exhibited nonspecific morphology, with nested, sheet-like, or papillary architecture, resembling other types of renal neoplasms, such as clear cell RCC, Xp11 RCC, perivascular epithelioid cell tumor (PEComa), or papillary RCC. Although cases bearing a MALAT1-TFEB fusion demonstrated variable morphologies, all 9 cases featuring typical biphasic morphology were associated with MALAT1-TFEB genotype. Accordingly, typical biphasic morphology suggests MALAT1-TFEB fusion, whereas atypical morphology did not suggest the specific type of fusion. Isolated or clustered eosinophilic cells were a common feature in TFEB RCCs, which may be a useful morphology diagnostic clue for TFEB RCCs. Clinicopathologic variables assessment showed that necrosis was the only morphologic feature that correlated with the aggressive behavior of TFEB RCC (P=0.004). In summary, our study expands the genomic spectrum and the clinicopathologic features of TFEB RCCs, and highlights the challenges of diagnosis and the importance of subtyping of this tumor by combining morphology and multiple molecular techniques.\",\"PeriodicalId\":275221,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The American Journal of Surgical Pathology\",\"volume\":\"117 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-11-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"31\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The American Journal of Surgical Pathology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0000000000001408\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The American Journal of Surgical Pathology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0000000000001408","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 31

摘要

补充数字内容可在文本中找到。不同基因融合的Xp11肾细胞癌(RCC)可能具有不同的临床病理特征。我们试图确定TFEB易位的RCC中的变异融合。本研究共选择31例TFEB rcc;25例(81%,25/31)使用融合探针发现MALAT1-TFEB融合。其余6例(19%,6/31)进一步进行RNA测序分析,其中5例检测到TFEB相关基因融合,包括2例ACTB-TFEB, 1例EWSR1-TFEB, 1例CLTC-TFEB和1例潜在PPP1R10-TFEB (TFEB基因的准中心反转,与TFEB“阴性”分裂FISH结果一致,提示检测TFEB基因重排可能存在诊断缺陷)。5个融合转录物中有4个通过逆转录聚合酶链反应和Sanger测序成功验证。形态学上,约三分之一(29%,9/31)的TFEB rcc表现为典型的双相形态。其余三分之二的病例(71%,22/31)表现为非特异性形态,呈巢状、片状或乳头状结构,类似于其他类型的肾肿瘤,如透明细胞肾细胞癌、Xp11肾细胞癌、血管周围上皮样细胞瘤(PEComa)或乳头状肾细胞癌。虽然携带MALAT1-TFEB融合的病例表现出不同的形态,但所有9例具有典型双相形态的病例都与MALAT1-TFEB基因型相关。因此,典型的双相形态提示MALAT1-TFEB融合,而非典型形态不提示特定类型的融合。嗜酸性细胞分离或聚集是TFEB rcc的共同特征,这可能是TFEB rcc的一个有用的形态学诊断线索。临床病理变量评估显示坏死是唯一与TFEB RCC侵袭性行为相关的形态学特征(P=0.004)。总之,我们的研究扩展了TFEB rcc的基因组谱和临床病理特征,并强调了通过结合形态学和多种分子技术对这种肿瘤进行诊断的挑战和分型的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Clinicopathologic and Molecular Analysis of the TFEB Fusion Variant Reveals New Members of TFEB Translocation Renal Cell Carcinomas (RCCs)
Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text. Xp11 renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with different gene fusions may have different clinicopathologic features. We sought to identify variant fusions in TFEB translocation RCC. A total of 31 cases of TFEB RCCs were selected for the current study; MALAT1-TFEB fusion was identified in 25 cases (81%, 25/31) using fusion probes. The remaining 6 cases (19%, 6/31) were further analyzed by RNA sequencing and 5 of them were detected with TFEB-associated gene fusions, including 2 ACTB-TFEB, 1 EWSR1-TFEB, 1 CLTC-TFEB, and 1 potential PPP1R10-TFEB (a paracentric inversion of the TFEB gene, consistent with “negative” TFEB split FISH result, and advising a potential diagnostic pitfall in detecting TFEB gene rearrangement). Four of the 5 fusion transcripts were successfully validated by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction and Sanger sequencing. Morphologically, approximately one third (29%, 9/31) of TFEB RCCs showed typical biphasic morphology. The remaining two thirds of the cases (71%, 22/31) exhibited nonspecific morphology, with nested, sheet-like, or papillary architecture, resembling other types of renal neoplasms, such as clear cell RCC, Xp11 RCC, perivascular epithelioid cell tumor (PEComa), or papillary RCC. Although cases bearing a MALAT1-TFEB fusion demonstrated variable morphologies, all 9 cases featuring typical biphasic morphology were associated with MALAT1-TFEB genotype. Accordingly, typical biphasic morphology suggests MALAT1-TFEB fusion, whereas atypical morphology did not suggest the specific type of fusion. Isolated or clustered eosinophilic cells were a common feature in TFEB RCCs, which may be a useful morphology diagnostic clue for TFEB RCCs. Clinicopathologic variables assessment showed that necrosis was the only morphologic feature that correlated with the aggressive behavior of TFEB RCC (P=0.004). In summary, our study expands the genomic spectrum and the clinicopathologic features of TFEB RCCs, and highlights the challenges of diagnosis and the importance of subtyping of this tumor by combining morphology and multiple molecular techniques.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Superficial CD34-Positive Fibroblastic Tumor Localized Malignant Peritoneal Mesothelioma (LMPeM) in Women: A Clinicopathologic Study of 18 Cases Gastroesophageal Glomus Tumors “Malignant Mesenchymoma” Revisited Clinicopathologic and Immunohistochemical Characterization of Sarcomatoid Chromophobe Renal Cell Carcinoma
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1