Angiomatoid fibrous histiocytoma: comparison of fluorescence in situ hybridization and reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction as adjunct diagnostic modalities

Angiomatoid fibrous histiocytoma (AFH) is a rare soft tissue neoplasm of intermediate biologic potential and uncertain differentiation, most often arising in the extremities of children and young adults. Although it has characteristic histologic features of a lymphoid cuff surrounding nodules of ovoid cells with blood-filled cystic cavities, diagnosis is often difficult due to its morphologic heterogeneity and lack of specific immunoprofile. Angiomatoid fibrous histiocytoma is associated with recurrent chromosomal translocations, leading to characteristic EWSR1-CREB1, EWSR1-ATF1, and, rarely, FUS-ATF1 gene fusions; fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), detecting EWSR1 or PUS rearrangements, and reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for EWSR1-CREB1 and EWSR1-ATF1 fusion transcripts have become routine ancillary tools. We present a large comparative series of FISH and RT-PCR for AFH. Seventeen neoplasms (from 16 patients) histologically diagnosed as AFH were assessed for EWSR1 rearrangements or EWSR1-CREB1 and EWSR1-ATF1 fusion transcripts. All 17 were positive for either FISH or RT-PCR or both. Of 16, 14 (87.5%) had detectable EWSR1-CREB1 or EWSR1-ATF1 fusion transcripts by RT-PCR, whereas 13 (76.5%) of 17 had positive EWSR1 rearrangement with FISH. All 13 of 13 non-AFH control neoplasms failed to show EWSR1-CREB1 or EWSR1-ATF1 fusion transcripts, whereas EWSR1 rearrangement was present in 2 of these 13 cases (which were histopathologically myoepithelial neoplasms). This study shows that EWSR1-CREB1 or EWSR1-ATF1 fusions predominate in AFH (supporting previous reports that PUS rearrangement is rare in AFH) and that RT-PCR has a comparable detection rate to FISH for AFH. Importantly, cases of AFH can be missed if RTPCR is not performed in conjunction with FISH, and RT-PCR has the added advantage of specificity, which is crucial, as EWSR1 rearrangements are present in a variety of neoplasms in the histologic differential diagnosis of AFH, that differ in behavior and treatment (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved

The comparative utility of fluorescence in situ hybridization and reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction in the diagnosis of alveolar rhabdomyosarcoma.

Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) for FOXO1 gene rearrangement and reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for PAX3/7-FOXO1 fusion transcripts have become routine ancillary tools for the diagnosis of alveolar rhabdomyosarcomas (ARMS). Here we summarize our experience of these adjunct diagnostic modalities at a tertiary center, presenting the largest comparative series of FISH and PCR for suspected or possible ARMS to date. All suspected or possible ARMS tested by FISH or PCR for FOXO1 rearrangement or PAX3/7-FOXO1 fusion transcripts over a 7-year period were included. FISH and PCR results were correlated with clinical and histologic findings. One hundred samples from 95 patients had FISH and/or PCR performed. FISH had higher rates of technical success (96.8 %) compared with PCR (88 %). Where both tests were utilized successfully, there was high concordance rate between them (94.9 %). In 24 histologic ARMS tested for FISH or PCR, 83.3 % were translocation-positive (all for PAX3-FOXO1 by PCR) and included 3 histologic solid variants. In 76 cases where ARMS was excluded, there were 3 potential false-positive cases with FISH but none with PCR. PCR had similar sensitivity (85.7 %) and better specificity (100 %) in aiding the diagnosis of ARMS, compared with FISH (85 and 95.8 %, respectively). All solid variant ARMS harbored FOXO1 gene rearrangements and PAX3-FOXO1 ARMS were detected to the exclusion of PAX7-FOXO1. In comparative analysis, both FISH and PCR are useful in aiding the diagnosis of ARMS and excluding its sarcomatous mimics. FISH is more reliable technically but has less specificity than PCR. In cases where ARMS is in the differential diagnosis, it is optimal to perform both PCR and FISH: both have similar sensitivities for detecting ARMS, but FISH may confirm or exclude cases that are technically unsuccessful with PCR, while PCR can detect specific fusion transcripts that may be useful prognostically