Detection of GRM1 gene rearrangements in chondromyxoid fibroma: a comparison of fluorescence in-situ hybridisation, RNA sequencing and immunohistochemical analysis.
GRM1 rearrangement and upregulation
chondromyxoid fibroma
Journal
Histopathology
ISSN: 1365-2559
Titre abrégé: Histopathology
Pays: England
ID NLM: 7704136
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
18 Jun 2024
18 Jun 2024
Historique:
revised:
01
06
2024
received:
18
03
2024
accepted:
04
06
2024
medline:
19
6
2024
pubmed:
19
6
2024
entrez:
19
6
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Chondromyxoid fibroma (CMF) is a rare, benign bone tumour which arises primarily in young adults and is occasionally diagnostically challenging. Glutamate metabotropic receptor 1 (GRM1) gene encodes a metabotropic glutamate receptor and was recently shown to be up-regulated in chondromyxoid fibroma through gene fusion and promoter swapping. The aim of this study was to interrogate cases of CMF for the presence of GRM1 gene rearrangements, gene fusions and GRM1 protein overexpression. Selected cases were subjected to testing by fluorescent in-situ hybridisation (FISH) with a GRM1 break-apart probe, a targeted RNA sequencing method and immunohistochemical study with an antibody to GRM1 protein. Two cases were subjected to whole transcriptomic sequencing. In 13 of 13 cases, GRM1 protein overexpression was detected by immunohistochemistry using the GRM1 antibody. Of the 12 cases successfully tested by FISH, nine of 12 showed GRM1 rearrangements by break-apart probe assay. Targeted RNA sequencing analysis did not detect gene fusions in any of the eight cases tested, but there was an increase in GRM1 mRNA expression in all eight cases. Two cases subjected to whole transcriptomic sequencing (WTS) showed elevated GRM1 expression and no gene fusions. GRM1 gene rearrangements can be detected using FISH break-apart probes in approximately 75% of cases, and immunohistochemical detection of GRM1 protein over-expression is a sensitive diagnostic method. The gene fusion was not detected by targeted RNA sequencing, due most probably to the complexity of fusion mechanism, and is not yet a reliable method for confirming a diagnosis of CMF in the clinical setting.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Subventions
Organisme : NIH HHS
ID : P30 CA08748
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
© 2024 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Jaffe HL, Lichtenstein L. Chondromyxoid fibroma of bone; a distinctive benign tumor likely to be mistaken especially for chondrosarcoma. Arch. Pathol. (Chic.) 1948; 45; 541–551.
Rahimi A, Beabout JW, Ivins JC, Dahlin DC. Chondromyxoid fibroma: a clinicopathologic study of 76 cases. Cancer 1972; 30; 726–736.
Wu CT, Inwards CY, O'Laughlin S, Rock MG, Beabout JW, Unni KK. Chondromyxoid fibroma of bone: a clinicopathologic review of 278 cases. Hum. Pathol. 1998; 29; 438–446.
Schajowicz F, Gallardo H. Chondromyxoid fibroma (fibromyxoid chondroma) of bone. A clinico‐pathological study of thirty‐two cases. J. Bone Joint Surg. Br. 1971; 53; 198–216.
Szurian K, Kashofer K, Liegl‐Atzwanger B. Role of next‐generation sequencing as a diagnostic tool for the evaluation of bone and soft‐tissue tumors. Pathobiology 2017; 84; 323–338.
Safar A, Nelson M, Neff JR et al. Recurrent anomalies of 6q25 in chondromyxoid fibroma. Hum. Pathol. 2000; 31; 306–311.
Romeo S, Duim RA, Bridge JA et al. Heterogeneous and complex rearrangements of chromosome arm 6q in chondromyxoid fibroma: delineation of breakpoints and analysis of candidate target genes. Am. J. Pathol. 2010; 177; 1365–1376.
Nord KH, Lilljebjorn H, Vezzi F et al. GRM1 is upregulated through gene fusion and promoter swapping in chondromyxoid fibroma. Nat. Genet. 2014; 46; 474–477.
Toland AMS, Lam SW, Varma S et al. GRM1 immunohistochemistry distinguishes chondromyxoid fibroma from its histologic mimics. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2022; 46; 1407–1414.
Kervarrec T, Lo Bello G, Pissaloux D et al. GRM1 gene fusions as an alternative molecular driver in blue nevi and related melanomas. Mod. Pathol. 2023; 36; 100264.
Zhang L, Hwang S, Benayed R et al. Myositis ossificans‐like soft tissue aneurysmal bone cyst: a clinical, radiological, and pathological study of seven cases with COL1A1‐USP6 fusion and a novel ANGPTL2‐USP6 fusion. Mod. Pathol. 2020; 33; 1492–1504.
Zheng Z, Liebers M, Zhelyazkova B et al. Anchored multiplex PCR for targeted next‐generation sequencing. Nat. Med. 2014; 20; 1479–1484.
Dobin A, Davis CA, Schlesinger F et al. STAR: ultrafast universal RNA‐seq aligner. Bioinformatics 2013; 29; 15–21.
Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network. Comprehensive and integrated genomic characterization of adult soft tissue sarcomas. Cell 2017; 171; 950–965.e28.
Grossman RL, Heath AP, Ferretti V et al. Toward a shared vision for cancer genomic data. N. Engl. J. Med. 2016; 375; 1109–1112.
Li H, Yang HH, Sun ZG, Tang HB, Min JK. Whole‐transcriptome sequencing of knee joint cartilage from osteoarthritis patients. Bone Joint Res. 2019; 8; 290–303.
Machado I, Zhang Y, Hameed M et al. GRM1‐rearranged chondromyxoid fibroma with FGF23 expression: a potential pitfall in small biopsies. Int. J. Surg. Pathol. 2024; 10668969241229345.
Zupan A, Salapura V, Sekoranja D, Pizem J. Subcutaneous chondromyxoid fibroma with a novel PNISR::GRM1 fusion‐report of a primary soft tissue tumour without connection to an underlying bone. Virchows Arch. 2023; 482; 917–921.
Amary F, Berisha F, Ye H et al. H3F3A (histone 3.3) G34W immunohistochemistry: a reliable marker defining benign and malignant giant cell tumor of bone. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2017; 41; 1059–1068.
Amary MF, Berisha F, Mozela R et al. The H3F3 K36M mutant antibody is a sensitive and specific marker for the diagnosis of chondroblastoma. Histopathology 2016; 69; 121–127.
Doyle LA, Vivero M, Fletcher CD, Mertens F, Hornick JL. Nuclear expression of STAT6 distinguishes solitary fibrous tumor from histologic mimics. Mod. Pathol. 2014; 27; 390–395.
Yoshida A, Tsuta K, Ohno M et al. STAT6 immunohistochemistry is helpful in the diagnosis of solitary fibrous tumors. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2014; 38; 552–559.
Scapa JV, Cloutier JM, Raghavan SS, Peters‐Schulze G, Varma S, Charville GW. DDIT3 immunohistochemistry is a useful tool for the diagnosis of myxoid liposarcoma. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2021; 45; 230–239.
Baranov E, McBride MJ, Bellizzi AM et al. A novel SS18‐SSX fusion‐specific antibody for the diagnosis of synovial sarcoma. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2020; 44; 922–933.
Alers JC, Krijtenburg PJ, Vissers KJ, van Dekken H. Effect of bone decalcification procedures on DNA in situ hybridization and comparative genomic hybridization. EDTA is highly preferable to a routinely used acid decalcifier. J. Histochem. Cytochem. 1999; 47; 703–710.
Levsky JM, Singer RH. Fluorescence in situ hybridization: past, present and future. J. Cell Sci. 2003; 116(Pt 14); 2833–2838.
Weaver J, Rao P, Goldblum JR et al. Can MDM2 analytical tests performed on core needle biopsy be relied upon to diagnose well‐differentiated liposarcoma? Mod. Pathol. 2010; 23; 1301–1306.