Citations

Abstract Background Intracranial mesenchymal tumors, FET::CREB fusion-positive (ICMT), show fusions involving FET RNA-binding protein family genes (EWSR1 or FUS) and CREB family of transcription factors (ATF1, CREB1, or CREM). The methylation signature(s), gene expression characteristics, and clinical behavior of this important tumor type require further characterization. Methods We study the methylation profiles of 81 ICMT cases (61 newly profiled cases and 20 cases from publicly available sources). Clinicopathologic and genomic data were recorded for each case when available. Results ICMT showed a relatively distinct methylation signature compared to related tumors. Among the 65 cases where fusion types were documented, the identified fusions included EWSR1::ATF1 (25 cases), EWSR1::CREB1 (12 cases), EWSR1::CREM (21 cases), FUS::CREM (3 cases), and SMARCA2::CREM (4 cases). We confirmed the prior description of 2 distinct subgroups of ICMT (subclasses A and B). The majority of the cases belonged to subclass A (n = 69; 85%), which showed a higher median age compared to subclass B patients (26 years vs. 15 years). Subclass B cases (n = 12; 15%) showed shorter progression-free survival (P < 0.01). Gene expression analysis of ICMT showed key overexpressed markers in ICMT, with significant CREM overexpression regardless of fusion type, when compared to either meningioma alone or a larger group of CNS tumors. Conclusions This work provides further characterization of ICMT as an important CNS mesenchymal neoplasm that is prone to tumor recurrence, showing 2 prognostically relevant methylation subclasses and warranting diagnostic distinction from other epigenetically and histologically related tumors. ICMTs show substantial overexpression of the CREM gene, independent of fusion type.

Abstract Objectives Urine drug testing (UDT) is a critical tool used in medical, forensic, and occupational settings, but interpreting results can be challenging. We performed a study to assess the ability of health care professionals to interpret UDT results accurately. Methods In total, 911 clinical and laboratory professionals in the United States and Canada responded to a survey with questions gauging expertise in UDT interpretation. Responses were analyzed to identify knowledge gaps. Results Toxicologists and laboratory PhD scientists performed well, with means of 4.82 and 4.63 questions answered correctly (out of 6 possible), respectively. Physicians specializing in pathology, emergency medicine, primary care, and internal medicine, however, displayed concerning knowledge gaps, as did laboratorians with nondoctoral degrees. Experience and training correlated with interpretation accuracy. Identification of simulated compliance as well as understanding opioid exposure, metabolism, and immunoassay cross-reactivity were among the most clinically significant knowledge gaps. More than 30% of survey respondents indicated that they would seek UDT information from the internet or peers rather than clinical or laboratory experts. Conclusions The study highlighted the need for targeted education and better collaboration between clinical and laboratory experts and other health care professionals to ensure that when physicians order UDT, they can accurately interpret results and reduce harm.