Linos, Konstantinos

With the first series of PRRX1 -rearranged tumors published in 2019, the spectrum of these so-called fibroblastic tumors has been expanded. Since then, several smaller case series have been published; however, our understanding of them continues to be quite limited given their rarity. We herein studied 18 additional cases, the largest series to date. Eighteen tumors present in 9 male, 8 female, and 1 nonbinary patient with a median age of 35 years (range: 11 to 70 y) and involved the neck (5), the chest region (4), thigh (3), back (1), shoulder (1), forehead (1), lower leg (1), axilla (1), and the parapharyngeal region (1). Clinical follow-up (9/18 tumors; 50%; median: 10 mo; range: 4 to 40 mo) showed consistent indolent behavior without local recurrences or distant metastases. On morphology, these tumors were characterized by well-circumscription and distinctive peripheral crescent-shaped vessels. They were composed of uniform spindle and round cells growing in short fascicles within often densely hyalinized collagen lacking significant mitotic activity, necrosis, or cytologic atypia. Immunohistochemically, about half of the tested tumors expressed focal to rarely diffuse S100 with occasional co-expression of SOX10. Interestingly, almost half of the tested cases also showed complete loss of RB expression. All but 1 tumor harbored a PRRX1::NCOA1 fusion, while 1 case harbored a novel PRRX1::EP300 fusion. We herein provide additional data on these exceptionally uncommon tumors, expand their molecular spectrum, and compare them to their close morphologic mimics to aid in accurate diagnosis and avoid confusion with potentially more aggressive neoplasms.

AbstractBackgroundPoromas, and their malignant counterparts, porocarcinomas, harbor recurrent translocations involving YAP1‐MAML2, YAP1‐NUTM1, and infrequently WWTR1‐NUTM1; YAP1‐NUTM1 being the most common in porocarcinomas. NUT immunohistochemistry (IHC) can be used to identify NUTM1‐translocated tumors. This study sought to investigate potential novel NUTM1‐fusion partners among NUT IHC‐positive poromas and porocarcinomas.MethodsThirteen NUT IHC‐positive poroid tumors (four poromas and nine porocarcinomas) were identified within a multi‐institutional international cohort. Next‐generation sequencing (NGS) assessed for NUTM1 fusion partners.ResultsNGS detected a NUTM1 fusion in 12 of 13 cases: YAP1‐NUTM1 (11/12 cases) and WWTR1‐NUTM1 (1/12 cases). Two of the cases (2/12) with NUTM1 fusion were not called by the NGS algorithm but had at least one read‐spanning YAP1‐NUTM1 break point upon manual review. A NUTM1 fusion was not identified in one case; however, the sample had low RNA quality. The following fusion events were identified: YAP1 exon 4::NUTM1 exon 3 in six cases, YAP1 exon 6::NUTM1 exon 2 in one case, YAP1 exon 3::NUTM1 exon 3 in three cases, WWTR1 exon 3::NUTM1 exon 3 in one case, and YAP1 exon 8::NUTM1 exon 3 fusion in one case.ConclusionWhile no novel NUTM1 fusion partners were identified within our cohort, 12 of 13 cases had discoverable NUTM1 fusions; YAP1‐NUTM1 fusion was detected in 11 cases (92%) and WWTR1‐NUTM1 in 1 case (8%). These data corroborate findings from other recent investigations and further substantiate the utility of NUT IHC in diagnosing a subset of poroid neoplasms. In addition, two of our cases harbored fusions of YAP1 exon 6 to NUTM1 exon 3 and YAP1 exon 8 to NUTM1 exon 2, which have not been reported before in poroid neoplasms and indicate novel break points of YAP1.

AbstractBackgroundAppropriate use criteria (AUC) provide patient‐centered physician guidance in test selection. An initial set of AUC was reported by the American Society of Dermatopathology (ASDP) in 2018. AUC reflect evidence collected at single timepoints and may be affected by evolving evidence and experience. The objective of this study was to update and expand AUC for selected tests.MethodsRAND/UCLA (RAND Corporation [Santa Monica, CA]/University of California Los Angeles) methodology used includes the following: (a) literature review; (b) review of previously rated tests and previously employed clinical scenarios; (c) selection of previously rated tests for new ratings; (d) development of new clinical scenarios; (e) selection of additional tests; (f) three rating rounds with feedback and group discussion after rounds 1 and 2.ResultsFor 220 clinical scenarios comprising lymphoproliferative (light chain clonality), melanocytic (comparative genomic hybridization, fluorescence in situ hybridization, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction, telomerase reverse transcriptase promoter), vascular disorders (MYC), and inflammatory dermatoses (periodic acid‐Schiff, Gömöri methenamine silver), consensus by panel raters was reached in 172 of 220 (78%) scenarios, with 103 of 148 (70%) rated “usually appropriate” or “rarely appropriate” and 45 of 148 (30%), “appropriateness uncertain.” Limitations: The study design only measures appropriateness. Cost, availability, test comparison, and additional clinical considerations are not measured. The possibility that the findings of this study may be influenced by the inherent biases of the dermatopathologists involved in the study cannot be excluded.ConclusionsAUC are reported for selected diagnostic tests in clinical scenarios that occur in dermatopathology practice. Adhering to AUC may reduce inappropriate test utilization and improve healthcare delivery.

BackgroundAppropriate use criteria (AUC) provide physicians guidance in test selection, and can affect health care delivery, reimbursement policy and physician decision‐making.ObjectivesThe American Society of Dermatopathology, with input from the American Academy of Dermatology and the College of American Pathologists, sought to develop AUC in dermatopathology.MethodsThe RAND/UCLA appropriateness methodology, which combines evidence‐based medicine, clinical experience and expert judgment, was used to develop AUC in dermatopathology.ResultsWith the number of ratings predetermined at 3, AUC were developed for 211 clinical scenarios involving 12 ancillary studies. Consensus was reached for 188 (89%) clinical scenarios, with 93 (44%) considered “usually appropriate,” 52 (25%) “rarely appropriate” and 43 (20%) “uncertain appropriateness.”LimitationsThe methodology requires a focus on appropriateness without comparison between tests and irrespective of cost.ConclusionsThe ultimate decision of when to order specific test rests with the physician and is one where the expected benefit exceeds the negative consequences. This publication outlines the recommendations of appropriateness—AUC for 12 tests used in dermatopathology. Importantly, these recommendations may change considering new evidence. Results deemed “uncertain appropriateness” and where consensus was not reached may benefit from further research.