Citations

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.

ABSTRACTBackgroundDifferentiating metastatic melanoma from histologic mimics such as malignant gastrointestinal neuroectodermal tumor (GNET), malignant melanotic nerve sheath tumor (MMNST), and epithelioid malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor (EMPNST) poses significant diagnostic challenges due to overlapping morphology and immunophenotypes. PRAME is a novel immunohistochemical marker increasingly used to distinguish melanoma from its mimics, but remains underexplored in these rare tumor types.MethodsPRAME immunohistochemistry was performed on four GNETs, seven MMNSTs, 10 EMPNSTs, 16 metastatic melanomas (including eight undifferentiated melanomas), and two MITF‐rearranged melanocytic tumors. PRAME expression was scored from 0 to 4+ based on the percentage of tumor nuclei showing moderate to strong staining.ResultsAll GNETs, MMNSTs, and MITF‐rearranged tumors were PRAME‐negative. EMPNSTs showed variable expression: six were negative (0–1), one equivocal (2+), and three positive (3–4+). Fifteen of 16 melanomas were PRAME‐positive. PRAME scores differed significantly among tumor types (p = 1.99 × 10−5). PRAME demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity for distinguishing metastatic melanoma from primary mimickers including GNET and MMNST, but low specificity in EMPNST (71.4%).ConclusionsPRAME reliably distinguishes metastatic melanoma from GNET and MMNST, supporting its use in this differential. However, its reduced specificity in EMPNST limits its standalone diagnostic value in this context, emphasizing the need for a multimodal approach.

ABSTRACTVarious cutaneous adnexal neoplasms have been associated with gene fusions as the main driver of their histogenesis, most of which showed poroid or hidradenomatous differentiation or represented other tumors of sweat glands. Recently, we encountered two cases of primitive basaloid neoplasms of predominantly folliculogenic/pilosebaceous origin, both surprisingly harboring recurrent EWSR1 rearrangements. Both tumors presented in young patients of either sex (1 F; 17 years; 1 M; 37 years) and involved the dermis and subcutaneous tissue of the abdominal wall (case 1) and the buttock (case 2). Histologically, the tumors were composed of primitive, basaloid cells with areas of keratinization (case 1) or foci of sebaceous differentiation (case 2) and stained strongly with keratins, p40 (case 1) or p63 (case 2), while lacking significant CD99 expression in both cases. Case 1 harbored an EWSR1::FLI1 fusion while case 2 harbored an EWSR1::PBX3 fusion. Clinical follow‐up was available for case 2 and showed no evidence of disease at 15 months of follow‐up. Methylation profiling showed case 1 to cluster with cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma, while case 2 was independent but positioned close to salivary gland epithelial‐myoepithelial carcinoma. These findings expand on the histopathologic and molecular genetic features of basaloid tumors with apparent adnexal differentiation and raise awareness to carefully interpret and correlate molecular findings with morphology and immunophenotype to avoid misinterpretation as a mesenchymal neoplasm.

ABSTRACTXanthogranulomatous epithelial tumor (XGET)/Keratin‐positive giant cell tumor (KP‐GCT) represents a spectrum of recently described neoplasms characterized by a proliferation of distinctive mononuclear cells expressing keratin within a background of osteoclast‐like giant cells, mixed inflammatory cells, and a variably prominent xanthogranulomatous component. Recent studies demonstrated a recurrent HMGA2::NCOR2 fusion in many cases. We herein describe a case of XGET/KP‐GCT arising in the right femoral head of a 19‐year‐old male harboring a rare novel HMGA2::COL14A1 fusion.

Abstract Purpose: Early detection of neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1)–associated peripheral nerve sheath tumors (PNST) informs clinical decision-making, enabling early definitive treatment and potentially averting deadly outcomes. In this study, we describe a cell-free DNA (cfDNA) fragmentomic approach that distinguishes nonmalignant, premalignant, and malignant forms of PNST in the cancer predisposition syndrome, NF1. Experimental Design: cfDNA was isolated from plasma samples of a novel cohort of 101 patients with NF1 and 21 healthy controls and underwent whole-genome sequencing. We investigated diagnosis-specific signatures of copy-number alterations with in silico size selection as well as fragment profiles. Fragmentomics were analyzed using complementary feature types: bin-wise fragment size ratios, end motifs, and fragment non-negative matrix factorization signatures. Results: The novel cohort of patients with NF1 validated that our previous cfDNA copy-number alteration–based approach identifies malignant PNST (MPNST) but cannot distinguish between benign and premalignant states. Fragmentomic methods were able to differentiate premalignant states including atypical neurofibromas (AN). Fragmentomics also adjudicated AN cases suspicious for MPNST, correctly diagnosing samples noninvasively, which could have informed clinical management. Conclusions: Novel cfDNA fragmentomic signatures distinguish AN from benign plexiform neurofibromas and MPNST, enabling more precise clinical diagnosis and management. This study pioneers the early detection of malignant and premalignant PNST in NF1 and provides a blueprint for decentralizing noninvasive cancer surveillance in hereditary cancer predisposition syndromes.

AbstractBackgroundWhile the list of fusion‐driven soft tissue neoplasms is expanding rapidly, their importance among cutaneous and superficial mesenchymal and adnexal neoplasms remains poorly understood. This challenge is especially evident in cases with ambiguous histopathology that are difficult to classify based on morphology.AimsOur goal was to investigate the benefits of next‐generation sequencing in diagnosing complex cutaneous neoplasms.Materials & MethodsDepartmental archives were searched for fusion‐driven cutaneous neoplasms. Slides were retrieved and clinical information including follow‐up was obtained.ResultsFifteen cases occurred in eight female and seven male patients, with a median age of 26 years (range: 1–83) at diagnosis. Tumors involved the extremities (9), scalp (5), and head and neck (1). Predominant features included myoepithelial (5), nested spindled with clear cytoplasm (2), atypical adnexal/squamoid (2), small round blue cell (2), cellular spindled (3), and fibrohistiocytic morphology (1). Most frequently encountered fusions involved EWSR1 (6) fused to ERG (1), FLI1 (1), CREB1 (2), CREM (1), PBX3 (1), followed by PLAG1 (4) with LIFR (2), TRPS1 (1) and CHCHD7. Additional fusions encountered were YAP1::NUTM1, EML4::ALK, SS18::SSX1 (2), and a novel fusion: ACTB::ZMIZ2. Integration of histologic features and molecular findings led to final diagnoses of primary cutaneous Ewing sarcoma (2), soft tissue myoepithelioma (4), cutaneous syncytial myoepithelioma (1), cutaneous adnexal carcinoma (1), porocarcinoma (1), inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor (1), synovial sarcoma (2), clear cell sarcoma (2), and angiomatoid fibrous histiocytoma (1).Discussion and conclusionOur results show that fusion testing can be a helpful diagnostic tool, especially in cases with unusual or uncommon morphology in superficial sites. Furthermore, it can allow for the identification of potential therapeutic targets in some instances.