Context Next-generation sequencing–based approaches using RNA have increasingly been used by clinical laboratories for the detection of fusion genes, intragenic rearrangements, and exon-skipping events. Correspondingly, the College of American Pathologists (CAP) has advanced RNA sequencing proficiency testing (PT) to ensure optimal performance of these assays. Objective To report on laboratory performance and practices of RNA sequencing for the detection of fusion genes, intragenic rearrangements, and exon-skipping events using CAP PT data from 8 mailings (2018-A through 2021-B). Design CAP PT RNA sequencing program results from 153 laboratories across 24 proficiency test specimens, interrogating 22 distinct engineered fusion transcripts, were analyzed for correct identification of the fusion event, associated performance variables, and laboratory practices. Results Overall, the 4-year program detection rate (sensitivity) was 95.5% (1486 of 1556 results). False-negative rates were 3.6% (53 of 1463) and 18.3% (17 of 93) for fusion gene and intragenic rearrangement/exon-skipping events, respectively. Only 19 false-positive results were reported among the 8 PT mailings, and most were likely the result of preanalytical or postanalytical errors. There were no practice characteristics (eg, instrumentation, sequencing method) significantly associated with the fusion detection results. Conclusions These data reveal a high overall sensitivity and specificity for fusion gene detection by participating laboratories using clinical RNA sequencing. Performance was comparable across all laboratories, regardless of methodology. The fraction of false-negative results for intragenic rearrangement/exon-skipping events was greater than that for the chimeric fusion genes. False-negative results could not be attributed to any specific practice characteristics.
Comparative Performance of Breast Cancer Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization and Brightfield In Situ Hybridization on College of American Pathologists Proficiency Tests
Context.— Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and brightfield in situ hybridization (ISH) are 2 clinically approved laboratory methods for detecting ERBB2 (HER2) amplification in breast cancer. Objective.— To compare the performance of FISH and brightfield ISH on proficiency testing administered by the College of American Pathologists Laboratory Accreditation Program. Design.— Retrospective review was performed on 70 tissue core samples in 7 separate proficiency testing surveys conducted between 2009 and 2013. Results.— The samples included 13 consensus-amplified tissue cores, 53 consensus-nonamplified cores, and 4 cores that did not reach consensus for FISH and/or brightfield ISH. There were 2552 individual responses for FISH and 1871 individual responses for brightfield ISH. Consensus response rates were comparable for FISH (2474 of 2524; 98.0%) and brightfield ISH (2135 of 2189; 97.5%). The FISH analysis yielded an average HER2 copy number per cell that was significantly higher (by 2.86; P = .02) compared with brightfield ISH for amplified cores. For nonamplified cores, FISH yielded slightly, but not significantly, higher (by 0.17; P = .10) HER2 copy numbers per cell. There was no significant difference in the average HER2 to control ratio for either consensus-amplified or consensus-nonamplified cores. Participants reported “unable to analyze” more frequently for brightfield ISH (244 of 2453; 9.9%) than they did for FISH (160 of 2684; 6.0%). Conclusions.— Our study indicates a high concordance rate in proficiency testing surveys, with some significant differences noted in the technical performance of these assays. In borderline cases, updated American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists cutoff thresholds that place greater emphasis on HER2 copy number per cell could accentuate those differences between FISH and brightfield ISH.
A Prospective, Multi-institutional, Pathologist-Based Assessment of 4 Immunohistochemistry Assays for PD-L1 Expression in Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer
A cancer-promoting histone protein Mutations in the chromatin protein histone H3 are found in a number of pediatric cancers. The lysine-36–to–methionine (K36M) “oncohistone” mutation is seen in almost all chondroblastomas. Fang et al. show that the K36M mutant histones inhibit the normal methylation of this same residue in wild-type H3 histones. They do so by interfering with the enzymes that normally methylate this residue. The altered chromatin methylation patterns alter the expression of known cancer-related genes and impart cancer-related characteristics to the chondrocyte cells. Science , this issue p. 1344
Array-Based Comparative Genomic Hybridization Identifies
CDK4
and
FOXM1
Alterations as Independent Predictors of Survival in Malignant Peripheral Nerve Sheath Tum
Abstract Aneurysmal bone cyst (ABC) is a locally aggressive osseous lesion that typically occurs during the first two decades of life. ABC was regarded historically as a nonneoplastic process, but recent cytogenetic data have shown clonal rearrangements of chromosomal bands 16q22 and 17p13, indicating a neoplastic basis in at least some ABCs. Herein we show that a recurring ABC chromosomal translocation t(16;17)(q22;p13) creates a fusion gene in which the osteoblast cadherin 11 gene (CDH11) promoter region on 16q22 is juxtaposed to the entire ubiquitin-specific protease USP6 (Tre2) coding sequence on 17p13. CDH11-USP6 fusion transcripts were demonstrated only in ABC with t(16;17) but other ABCs had CDH11 or USP6 rearrangements resulting from alternate cytogenetic mechanisms. CDH11 is expressed strongly in bone, and our findings implicate a novel oncogenic mechanism in which deregulated USP6 transcription results from juxtaposition to the highly active CDH11 promoter.
Clinicopathologic Study of Ectomesenchymomas from Intergroup Rhabdomyosarcoma Study Groups III and IV
Ectomesenchymomas (EM) are rare malignant neoplasms usually consisting of rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) with a neural component. Only 21 cases have been previously reported. Here we extend the clinicopathologic spectrum of EM by describing our findings in 15 cases. Only 5 patients were infants; 10 were ≤3 years old and 5 were ≥6 years old. No male predilection was observed; 7 were female. The originating institutional diagnoses were; RMS (12), undifferentiated sarcoma (1), or EM (2), suggesting underdiagnosis of this entity. The primary tumor sites included external genital (5), pelvis/abdomen (6), head and neck (3), and extremity (1). The size of the primary neoplasm was usually ≥5 cm at diagnosis but dissemination only occurred in a minority. Local infiltration was not uncommon. These neoplasms were typically multilobate, thinly encapsulated, hemorrhagic, and necrotic. Light microscopic features were highly variable, but embryonal RMS with scattered or clustered ganglion cells, often in lacunae, was characteristic. In some cases, primitive neuroblastic or neuroectodermal areas were found and/or a component of alveolar RMS was seen. Focal anaplasia was occasionally observed. Mitotic activity appears higher than previously appreciated and some necrosis was invariably present. Electron microscopy was performed in 11 cases, which confirmed skeletal muscle ± neural differentiation. Cytogenetic studies performed in five cases revealed no specific abnormality. Monoclonal neuron-specific enolase was the best marker of ganglion cells and primitive neural elements. MIC-2 (CD99) membrane expression was not definitively present in any of the six cases examined. A number of the above parameters appear to be of some prognostic significance, but overall, these neoplasms appear to have a similar outcome as would be predicted for their RMS element alone (exclusive of any neural component), with respect to the RMS subtype, age of the patient, and anatomic location of the neoplasm.