Dataset Information

Correlating ROS1 Protein Expression With ROS1 Fusions, Amplifications, and Mutations.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

In this study, we sought to further characterize ROS1 protein expression in solid tumors with the complete spectrum of ROS1 genomic alterations.

Methods

ROS1 immunohistochemistry (IHC) was performed using the ROS1 (SP384) class I assay per manufacturer's instructions on a variety of solid tumors (n = 32) with known ROS1 genomic alterations. Genomic alterations included fusions (n = 17), gene amplifications (n = 10), and short-variant mutations (n = 11).

Results

Of the 32 cases with ROS1 IHC results, 100% (11 of 11) with canonical ROS1 fusions were positive for ROS1 IHC. Among noncanonical ROS1 fusions, only two (of five) cases with SQSTM1-ROS1 and RDX-ROS1 fusions were positive for ROS1 IHC whereas PTPRK-ROS1 (two) and TTC28-ROS1 fusions were negative for ROS1 IHC. One sample with a canonical ROS1 fusion and co-occurring ROS1 resistance mutation (6094G>A, p.G2032R) was positive for ROS1 IHC. A total of 10% (one of 10) of ROS1 amplified tumors were positive for ROS1 IHC. None of the cases (zero of five) with ROS1 short-variant mutations were positive for ROS1 protein expression.

Conclusions

These findings suggest that if ROS1 IHC was used as a screening tool for ROS1 fusion, a subset of fusion-negative tumors will reveal positive IHC staining highlighting the value of reflexing to genomic profiling to confirm the presence of a targetable fusion-driver before the initiation of therapy. In addition, the ability of comprehensive genomic profiling to detect ROS1 resistance mutations will be important for clinical decision making.

SUBMITTER: Huang RSP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8474213 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:GLI1 fusions involving ACTB, MALAT1, and PTCH1 genes have been recently reported in a subset of malignant soft tissue tumors with characteristic monomorphic nested epithelioid morphology and frequent S100 positivity. However, we encountered a group of morphologically similar soft tissue tumors lacking the canonical GLI1 gene fusions and sought to investigate their genetic abnormalities. A combined approach including RNA sequencing, targeted exome sequencing and FISH methodologies were used to identify potential novel genetic abnormalities. Ten patients (five females, five males) with an age range of 4-65 years (median 32.5) were identified. Tumors were located in the soft tissues of the limbs, trunk and head and neck, with one each in the tongue and lung. Histologically, tumors revealed ovoid to epithelioid cells arranged in a distinctive nested-trabecular pattern, separated by thin septa and a delicate vascular network. Two cases showed areas of increased nuclear pleomorphism and focal fascicular spindle cell growth. Four tumors showed a high mitotic count (≥15/10 HPFs), with necrosis seen in three of them. Lymphovascular invasion was noted in two cases. No consistent immunoprofile was detected, with positivity for CD56 (six cases), S100 (four cases), SMA (two cases), and pan-CK (one case). FISH showed GLI1 (12q13.3) gene amplification in all 10 cases, with co-amplification of CDK4 (12q14.1) in nine (90%) and MDM2 (12q15) in eight (80%) cases. Targeted exome sequencing performed in three cases confirmed the GLI1, CDK4, and MDM2 co-amplification. Only one case showed the presence of both GLI1 break-apart and amplification, although no gene partner was detected. Our findings suggest that GLI1 amplification, often associated with co-amplifications of CDK4 and MDM2 genes, may represent an alternative genetic mechanism of GLI1 oncogenic activation akin to GLI1 fusions, defining the pathogenesis of an emerging group of malignant soft tissue tumors with a distinctive nested growth pattern and variable immunoprofile.