Rosario Caltabiano1, Gaetano Magro1, Agata Polizzi2,3, Andrea Domenico Praticò4,5, Andrea Ortensi6, Valerio D'Orazi6, Andrea Panunzi6, Pietro Milone7, Luigi Maiolino8, Francesco Nicita9, Gabriele Lorenzo Capone10, Roberta Sestini10, Irene Paganini10, Mariella Muglia11, Sebastiano Cavallaro11, Salvatore Lanzafame1, Laura Papi10, Martino Ruggieri12. 1. Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences and Advanced Technologies "G. F. Ingrassia", Section of Anatomic Pathology, University of Catania, Catania, Italy. 2. National Centre for Rare Diseases, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Rome, Italy. 3. Institute of Neurological Sciences, National Research Council, Catania, Italy. 4. Unit of Rare Diseases of the Nervous System in Childhood, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Section of Pediatrics and Child Neuropsychiatry, University of Catania, AOU "Policlinico-Vittorio Emanuele", Via S. Sofia, 78, 95124, Catania, Italy. 5. Department of Biomedical and Biotechnological Sciences, University of Catania, Catania, Italy. 6. Unit of General Microsurgery and Hand Surgery, University of Rome "La Sapienza" and Hospital "Fabia Mater", Rome, Italy. 7. Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences and Advanced Technologies "G. Ingrassia", Section of Radiology, University of Catania, Catania, Italy. 8. Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences and Advanced Technologies "G. Ingrassia", Section of Otolaryngology, University of Catania, Catania, Italy. 9. Department of Paediatrics and Child Neuropsychiatry, Section of Paediatric Neurology, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy. 10. Department of Biomedical, Experimental and Clinical Sciences "Mario Serio", Section of Medical Genetics, University of Florence, Florence, Italy. 11. 11 Unit of Molecular Genetics, Institute of Neurological Sciences, National Research Council, Cosenza, Italy. 12. Unit of Rare Diseases of the Nervous System in Childhood, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Section of Pediatrics and Child Neuropsychiatry, University of Catania, AOU "Policlinico-Vittorio Emanuele", Via S. Sofia, 78, 95124, Catania, Italy. m.ruggieri@unict.it.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The INI1/SMARCB1 gene protein product has been implicated in the direct pathogenesis of schwannomas from patients with one form of schwannomatosis [SWNTS1; MIM # 162091] showing a mosaic pattern of loss of protein expression by immunohistochemistry [93% in familial vs. 55% in sporadic cases]. AIM OF STUDY: To verify whether such INI1/SMARCB1 mosaic pattern could be extended to all schwannomas arising in the sporadic and familial schwannomatoses [i.e. to SMARCB1-related (SWNTS1) or LZTR1-related (SWNTS2) schwannomatosis or to SMARCB1/LZTR1-negative schwannomatosis] and whether it could be involved in classical NF2 or solitary peripheral schwannomas METHODS: We blindly analysed schwannoma samples obtained from a total of 22 patients including (a) 2 patients (2 males; aged 38 and 55 years) affected by non-familial SMARCB1-associated schwannomatosis (SWTNS1); (b) 1 patient (1 female; aged 33 years) affected by familial schwannomatosis (SWTNS1/ SMARCB1 germ line mutations); (c) 5 patients (3 males, 2 females; aged 33 to 35 years) affected by non-familial (sporadic) LZTR1-associated schwannomatosis (SWNTS2); (d) 3 patients (3 males; aged 35 to 47 years) affected by familial schwannomatosis (SWTNS2/ LZTR1 germ line mutations); (e) 2 patients (1 male, 1 female; aged 63 and 49 years, respectively) affected by non-familial schwannomatosis (SWTNS, negative for SMARCB1, LZTR1 and NF2 gene mutations); (f) 4 patients (3 males, 1 females; aged 15 to 24 years) affected by classical NF2 (NF2: harbouring NF2 germ line mutations; and (g) 5 patients (3 males, 2 females; aged 33 to 68 years) who had solitary schwannomas. [follow-up = 15-30 years; negative for constitutional/somatic mutation analysis for the SMARCB1, LZTR1 and NF2 genes] were (blindly) analyzed. The INI1/SMARCB1 immunostaining pattern was regarded as (1) diffuse positive nuclear staining [= retained expression] or (2) mosaic pattern [mixed positive/negative nuclei = loss of expression in a subset of tumour cells]. RESULTS: All solitary peripheral schwannomas and NF2-associated vestibular schwannomas showed diffuse nuclear INI1/SMARCB1 staining in 97-100% of neoplastic cells; schwannomas obtained from all cases of non-familial and familial schwannomatosis and NF2-associated non-vestibular schwannomas showed a mosaic pattern ranging from 10 to 70% of INI1/SMARCB1-positive expression. We did not record a complete lack of nuclear staining. CONCLUSIONS: The present data suggests that (a) mosaic loss of immunohistochemical INI1/SMARCB1 expression, despite the interlesional variability, is a reliable marker of schwannomatosis regardless of the involved gene and it might help in the differential diagnosis of schwannomatosis vs. solitary schwannomas and (b) INI1/SMARCB1 expression is not useful in the differential with mosaic NF2, since NF2-associated peripheral schwannomas show the same immunohistochemical pattern.
BACKGROUND: The INI1/SMARCB1 gene protein product has been implicated in the direct pathogenesis of schwannomas from patients with one form of schwannomatosis [SWNTS1; MIM # 162091] showing a mosaic pattern of loss of protein expression by immunohistochemistry [93% in familial vs. 55% in sporadic cases]. AIM OF STUDY: To verify whether such INI1/SMARCB1 mosaic pattern could be extended to all schwannomas arising in the sporadic and familial schwannomatoses [i.e. to SMARCB1-related (SWNTS1) or LZTR1-related (SWNTS2) schwannomatosis or to SMARCB1/LZTR1-negative schwannomatosis] and whether it could be involved in classical NF2 or solitary peripheral schwannomas METHODS: We blindly analysed schwannoma samples obtained from a total of 22 patients including (a) 2 patients (2 males; aged 38 and 55 years) affected by non-familial SMARCB1-associated schwannomatosis (SWTNS1); (b) 1 patient (1 female; aged 33 years) affected by familial schwannomatosis (SWTNS1/ SMARCB1 germ line mutations); (c) 5 patients (3 males, 2 females; aged 33 to 35 years) affected by non-familial (sporadic) LZTR1-associated schwannomatosis (SWNTS2); (d) 3 patients (3 males; aged 35 to 47 years) affected by familial schwannomatosis (SWTNS2/ LZTR1 germ line mutations); (e) 2 patients (1 male, 1 female; aged 63 and 49 years, respectively) affected by non-familial schwannomatosis (SWTNS, negative for SMARCB1, LZTR1 and NF2 gene mutations); (f) 4 patients (3 males, 1 females; aged 15 to 24 years) affected by classical NF2 (NF2: harbouring NF2 germ line mutations; and (g) 5 patients (3 males, 2 females; aged 33 to 68 years) who had solitary schwannomas. [follow-up = 15-30 years; negative for constitutional/somatic mutation analysis for the SMARCB1, LZTR1 and NF2 genes] were (blindly) analyzed. The INI1/SMARCB1 immunostaining pattern was regarded as (1) diffuse positive nuclear staining [= retained expression] or (2) mosaic pattern [mixed positive/negative nuclei = loss of expression in a subset of tumour cells]. RESULTS: All solitary peripheral schwannomas and NF2-associated vestibular schwannomas showed diffuse nuclear INI1/SMARCB1 staining in 97-100% of neoplastic cells; schwannomas obtained from all cases of non-familial and familial schwannomatosis and NF2-associated non-vestibular schwannomas showed a mosaic pattern ranging from 10 to 70% of INI1/SMARCB1-positive expression. We did not record a complete lack of nuclear staining. CONCLUSIONS: The present data suggests that (a) mosaic loss of immunohistochemical INI1/SMARCB1 expression, despite the interlesional variability, is a reliable marker of schwannomatosis regardless of the involved gene and it might help in the differential diagnosis of schwannomatosis vs. solitary schwannomas and (b) INI1/SMARCB1 expression is not useful in the differential with mosaic NF2, since NF2-associated peripheral schwannomas show the same immunohistochemical pattern.
Authors: M Ruggieri; P Iannetti; A Polizzi; I La Mantia; A Spalice; O Giliberto; N Platania; A L Gabriele; V Albanese; L Pavone Journal: Neuropediatrics Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 1.947
Authors: Miriam J Smith; Anjana Kulkarni; Cecilie Rustad; Naomi L Bowers; Andrew J Wallace; Susan E Holder; Arvid Heiberg; Richard T Ramsden; D Gareth Evans Journal: Am J Med Genet A Date: 2011-11-21 Impact factor: 2.802
Authors: K D Hadfield; W G Newman; N L Bowers; A Wallace; C Bolger; A Colley; E McCann; D Trump; T Prescott; D G R Evans Journal: J Med Genet Date: 2008-02-19 Impact factor: 6.318
Authors: Arkadiusz Piotrowski; Jing Xie; Ying F Liu; Andrzej B Poplawski; Alicia R Gomes; Piotr Madanecki; Chuanhua Fu; Michael R Crowley; David K Crossman; Linlea Armstrong; Dusica Babovic-Vuksanovic; Amanda Bergner; Jaishri O Blakeley; Andrea L Blumenthal; Molly S Daniels; Howard Feit; Kathy Gardner; Stephanie Hurst; Christine Kobelka; Chung Lee; Rebecca Nagy; Katherine A Rauen; John M Slopis; Pim Suwannarat; Judith A Westman; Andrea Zanko; Bruce R Korf; Ludwine M Messiaen Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2013-12-22 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Miriam J Smith; Naomi L Bowers; Michael Bulman; Carolyn Gokhale; Andrew J Wallace; Andrew T King; Simon K L Lloyd; Scott A Rutherford; Charlotte L Hammerbeck-Ward; Simon R Freeman; D Gareth Evans Journal: Neurology Date: 2016-11-16 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: M Ruggieri; A D Praticò; A Serra; L Maiolino; S Cocuzza; P Di Mauro; L Licciardello; P Milone; G Privitera; G Belfiore; M Di Pietro; F Di Raimondo; A Romano; A Chiarenza; M Muglia; A Polizzi; D G Evans Journal: Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 2.124