4.4 Article

Novel FUS-KLF17 and EWSR1-KLF17 Fusions in Myoepithelial Tumors

期刊

GENES CHROMOSOMES & CANCER
卷 54, 期 5, 页码 267-275

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/gcc.22240

关键词

-

资金

  1. Cycle for Survival [P01CA47179, P50CA140146-01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Myoepithelial (ME) tumors of soft tissue and bone display a heterogeneous histologic spectrum and in about half of the cases harbor EWSR1 gene rearrangements. Despite rare case reports, the prevalence of fused in sarcoma (FUS) gene abnormalities and its related fusion partners remains undetermined among ME tumors. Therefore, we screened 66 EWSR1-negative ME tumors for FUS abnormalities by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). In an index FUS-rearranged case, 3-rapid amplification of cDNA ends (RACE) was applied to identify the fusion partner. Results were further confirmed by reverse transcription-PCR, followed by FISH screening the entire cohort of FUS-rearranged and EWSR1-positive ME lesions lacking a known fusion partner. The correlation between genotype and clinicopathological features was also investigated. As a result, six (9%) FUS-rearranged cases were identified, spanning divergent age groups, tumor locations, and morphologic features. A novel FUS-KLF17 fusion was identified by 3-RACE in an 11-year-old girl with a foot lesion associated with locoregional metastases. Three additional cases with FUS-KLF17 fusions were identified and one KLF17 rearrangement (6.3%) was found among the 16 EWSR1-positive cases tested. The KLF17-related ME tumors affected younger patients and often exhibited trabecular growth in a myxohyaline stroma, but this genotype did not correlate with a malignant phenotype. In conclusion, a small subset of ME tumors harbor FUS rearrangements, two thirds of them being associated with KLF17 fusion. FUS FISH analysis is recommended in EWSR1-negative lesions in which a ME diagnosis is suspected. KLF17 is also a rare gene fusion partner to EWSR1-rearranged ME tumors. (c) 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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

4.4
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