4.7 Article

Diagnostic Value of MAML2 Rearrangements in Mucoepidermoid Carcinoma

期刊

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijms23084322

关键词

biomarker; mucoepidermoid; adenosquamous; molecular testing; next-generation sequencing; fusion gene; CRTC

资金

  1. NIH [R37 CA225655]
  2. NIH NCI [1P01CA240239-01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluates the diagnostic relevance of MAML2 translocations, finding that they are rare but important in confirming the diagnosis of Mucoepidermoid carcinoma (MEC), especially in head and neck tumors. MAML2 testing is sensitive for MEC and can help distinguish it from other types of tumors, such as adenosquamous carcinoma (ASC).
Mucoepidermoid carcinoma (MEC) is often seen in salivary glands and can harbor MAML2 translocations (MAML2+). The translocation status has diagnostic utility as an objective confirmation of the MEC diagnosis, for example, when distinction from the more aggressive adenosquamous carcinoma (ASC) is not straightforward. To assess the diagnostic relevance of MAML2, we examined our 5-year experience in prospective testing of 8106 solid tumors using RNA-seq panel testing in combinations with a two-round Delphi-based scenario survey. The prevalence of MAML2+ across all tumors was 0.28% (n = 23/8106) and the majority of MAML2+ cases were found in head and neck tumors (78.3%), where the overall prevalence was 5.9% (n = 18/307). The sensitivity of MAML2 for MEC was 60% and most cases (80%) were submitted for diagnostic confirmation; in 24% of cases, the MAML2 results changed the working diagnosis. An independent survey of 15 experts showed relative importance indexes of 0.8 and 0.65 for confirmatory MAML2 testing in suspected MEC and ASC, respectively. Real-world evidence confirmed that the added value of MAML2 is a composite of an imperfect confirmation test for MEC and a highly specific exclusion tool for the diagnosis of ASC. Real-world evidence can help move a rare molecular-genetic biomarker from an emerging tool to the clinic.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据