4.3 Review

Neuroepithelial tumor with EWSR1::PATZ1 fusion: A literature review

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/jnen/nlad076

关键词

Brain tumor; EWSR1::PATZ1 fusion; Neuroepithelial tumor; Next-generation study

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study presents the clinicopathological and molecular genetic characteristics of a neuroepithelial tumor (NET) with EWSR1::PATZ1 fusion, which has recently been discovered in rare central nervous system tumors and soft tissue sarcomas. Two cases of this fusion were identified, with the pediatric case showing a high-grade tumor and longer survival compared to conventional glioblastoma. The TERT promoter mutation may serve as an indicator of high-grade behavior in PATZ1 fusion NET.
We present the clinicopathological and molecular genetic characteristics of a neuroepithelial tumor (NET), EWSR1::PATZ1 fusion-positive with a literature review. This fusion has recently been discovered in rare central nervous system tumors and soft tissue sarcomas and was not included in the fifth edition of the WHO classifications. We identified this fusion in 2 NETs. The first case involved a 7-year-old girl and the second case occurred in a 53-year-old man; both presented with headaches and vomiting. The pediatric case initially showed an intermediate grade of the tumor, but upon recurrences, it transformed into a high-grade tumor with 2 relapses in 8.3 years. This case exhibited high mitotic activity (20/10 high-power fields), and a high Ki-67 index (21%). The TERT promoter (TERTp) mutation was present in both initial and recurrent tumors. In contrast, the adult case was a low-grade tumor with no mitotic activity or recurrence over 13.5 months after subtotal resection and gamma knife surgery. Interestingly, the pediatric case demonstrated a longer survival time compared to conventional glioblastoma. The TERTp mutation, similar to being a molecular signature in adult-type glioblastoma, could also be an indicator of high-grade behavior in PATZ1 fusion NET.

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

4.3
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