↓ Skip to main content

Clinicopathological and Molecular Spectrum of Ewing Sarcomas/PNETs, Including Validation of EWSR1 Rearrangement by Conventional and Array FISH Technique in Certain Cases

Overview of attention for article published in Pathology & Oncology Research, November 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 Mendeley
Title
Clinicopathological and Molecular Spectrum of Ewing Sarcomas/PNETs, Including Validation of EWSR1 Rearrangement by Conventional and Array FISH Technique in Certain Cases
Published in
Pathology & Oncology Research, November 2013
DOI 10.1007/s12253-013-9721-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bharat Rekhi, Ulrich Vogel, Ranjan Basak, Sangeeta B. Desai, Nirmala A. Jambhekar

Abstract

Over the years, a wide clinicopathological spectrum has been identified within Ewing family of tumors (EFTs). As these tumors are chemosensitive, their correct and timely identification is necessary. The aims of this study were (1) to present the diverse clinicopathological and molecular profile of EFTs in our settings, (2) to identify a pragmatic approach for diagnosing EFTs, especially for application of ancillary techniques, namely RT-PCR for specific transcripts (EWS-FLI1, EWS-ERG) and FISH for EWSR1 gene rearrangement, in certain cases and (3) to show the utility of tissue microarray in establishing a new FISH test. Fifty-eight EFTs were identified in 38 males and 20 females within an age-range of 1-65 years (median, 16), mostly in lower extremities (14) (24.1 %). Therapeutically, most patients underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy with subsequent surgery. Histopathologically, diagnosis of EFTs was initially offered in 41/58 (70.6 %) tumors. On review, 59 % tumors showed diffuse pattern, while 41 % displayed rosettes. Immunohistochemically, tumor cells were mostly diffusely positive for CD99 (48/52) (92.3 %); FLI-1 (17/18) (94.4 %); variably for BCL2 (16/18) (88.8 %), synaptophysin (6/20) (35 %), S100-P (2/7) (28.5 %), CD56 (2/5) (40 %), NSE (2/5) (40 %), calponin (3/4) (75 %), EMA (5/24) (20.8 %) and CK (3/24) (12.5 %), the latter two mostly focally. Fifty five tumors were EWS-FLI1 positive, while a single tumor was EWS-ERG positive. Sensitivity for PCR was 61 %. EWSR1 rearrangement was detected by FISH in 12/13 Ewing sarcomas/PNETs. Sensitivity for EWSR1 test was 92.3 % and specificity was 100 %. Thirty-eight tumors, including 14 molecular confirmed EFTs and 21 other tumors were tested for EWSR1 rearrangement. Among 21 unrelated tumors, EWSR1 rearrangement was detected in few myoepithelial tumors, occasional desmoplastic small round cell tumor and an extraskeletal myxoid chondrosarcoma. Further, a tissue microarray with a separate set of 8 EFTs, confirmed at another laboratory was analysed for validation of EWSR1 rearrangement test. 23/28 (82.1 %) tissue cores of the tissue microarray, stained by FISH were interpretable, including EWSR1 rearrangement, detected in 20/28 tissue cores; not detected in 3 liver cores and uninterpretable in 5 (17.8 %) cores. Classical EFTs can be diagnosed with diffuse, membranous CD99 positivity, intranuclear FLI1 positivity and LCA negativity in malignant round cells. In unconventional cases, it is indispensable to reveal the concomitant fusion m-RNA by RT-PCR. In case of negative molecular results, it is necessary to prove EWSR1 rearrangement by FISH. These tests should be interpreted with clinicopathological correlation. Tissue microarrays for FISH are useful during validation of a new test, especially when sarcomas like EFTs show less genetic heterogeneity within tumor cells.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 20 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 20%
Student > Master 4 20%
Student > Bachelor 3 15%
Other 1 5%
Unspecified 1 5%
Other 3 15%
Unknown 4 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 50%
Unspecified 1 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 5%
Unknown 7 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 February 2015.
All research outputs
#20,262,276
of 22,792,160 outputs
Outputs from Pathology & Oncology Research
#460
of 712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#267,206
of 306,709 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pathology & Oncology Research
#5
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,792,160 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 712 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 306,709 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.