| Literature DB >> 34895332 |
Margaret Shatara1, Kathleen M Schieffer2,3, Darren Klawinski4, Diana L Thomas5,6, Christopher R Pierson5,6,7, Eric A Sribnick8, Jeremy Jones9, Diana P Rodriguez9, Carol Deeg10, Elizabeth Hamelberg10, Stephanie LaHaye10, Katherine E Miller10,11, James Fitch10, Benjamin Kelly10, Kristen Leraas10, Ruthann Pfau10,6,11, Peter White10,11, Vincent Magrini10,11, Richard K Wilson10,11, Elaine R Mardis10,11, Mohamed S Abdelbaki1, Jonathan L Finlay12, Daniel R Boué5,6, Catherine E Cottrell10,6,11, David R Ghasemi13,14, Kristian W Pajtler13,15, Diana S Osorio4.
Abstract
Primary spinal cord tumors contribute to ≤ 10% of central nervous system tumors in individuals of pediatric or adolescent age. Among intramedullary tumors, spinal ependymomas make up ~ 30% of this rare tumor population. A twelve-year-old male presented with an intradural, extramedullary mass occupying the dorsal spinal canal from C6 through T2. Gross total resection and histopathology revealed a World Health Organization (WHO) grade 2 ependymoma. He recurred eleven months later with extension from C2 through T1-T2. Subtotal resection was achieved followed by focal proton beam irradiation and chemotherapy. Histopathology was consistent with WHO grade 3 ependymoma. Molecular profiling of the primary and recurrent tumors revealed a novel amplification of the MYC (8q24) gene, which was confirmed by fluorescence in situ hybridization studies. Although MYC amplification in spinal ependymoma is exceedingly rare, a newly described classification of spinal ependymoma harboring MYCN (2p24) amplification (SP-MYCN) has been defined by DNA methylation-array based profiling. These individuals typically present with a malignant progression and dismal outcomes, contrary to the universally excellent survival outcomes seen in other spinal ependymomas. DNA methylation array-based classification confidently classified this tumor as SP-MYCN ependymoma. Notably, among the cohort of 52 tumors comprising the SP-MYCN methylation class, none harbor MYC amplification, highlighting the rarity of this genomic amplification in spinal ependymoma. A literature review comparing our individual to reported SP-MYCN tumors (n = 26) revealed similarities in clinical, histopathologic, and molecular features. Thus, we provide evidence from a single case to support the inclusion of MYC amplified spinal ependymoma within the molecular subgroup of SP-MYCN.Entities:
Keywords: Amplification; DNA methylation array; Ependymoma; FISH; MYC; MYCN; Pediatric; Spinal
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34895332 PMCID: PMC8665631 DOI: 10.1186/s40478-021-01296-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Acta Neuropathol Commun ISSN: 2051-5960 Impact factor: 7.801
Fig. 1MRI images at presentation: sagittal a T1-weighted and b T2-weighted showing avidly enhancing intradural mass, occupying the dorsal spinal canal from C6 through T1-T2. MRI images at first relapse: sagittal c T1-weighted and d T2-weighted showing avidly enhancing tumor, now extending from C2 through T1-T2. MRI images at second relapse: sagittal e T1-weighted and f T2-weighted showing new noncontiguous separate nodules scattered along the surface of the cord from C7 through L1
Review of MYC and MYCN-amplified spinal ependymoma clinical features
| Reference | Case no | Sex | Age (yrs) | Primary tumor location | Resection | Relapse/ Progression | Chemotherapy | Radiation therapy | Disease history | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| This study | 1 | M | 12 | Cervical/Thoracic | GTR | Yes | Yes | Yes | Multiple recurrences, GTR of first resection at C6-T2; first recurrence at C2-T1/T2 11 months post-resection treated with STR, chemotherapy and proton therapy; progression and metastasis to thoraco-lumbar region 16 months after first relapse treated with IMRT to the entire thecal sac and focal re-irradiation to the cervical region tumor | |
| [ | 1 | F | 22 | Cervical | STR | No | No | Unknown | Died, cause uncertain | |
| [ | 2 | F | 31 | Lumbar | GTR | Yes | NA | Yes | Alive at 15- month follow-up | |
| [ | 3 | F | 13 | Thoracic | STR | Yes | Yes | Yes | Died of disease | |
| [ | 4 | F | 15 | Thoracic | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | |
| [ | 1 | F | 14 | Cervical/Thoracic | STR | Yes | Yes | Yes | Dead | |
| [ | 2 | M | 18 | Thoracic | STR | Yes | Yes | Yes | Alive at 111-month follow-up | |
| [ | 3 | M | 12 | Cervical/Thoracic | STR | Yes | Yes | Yes | Dead | |
| [ | 4 | F | 35 | Cervical/Thoracic | STR | Yes | Yes | Yes | Alive with palliative care (29-month follow-up) | |
| [ | 5 | M | 34 | Lumbar | STR | Yes | Yes | Yes | Dead | |
| [ | 6 | F | 26 | Thoracic | STR | Yes | Yes | Yes | Alive at 31-month follow-up | |
| [ | 7 | M | 23 | Thoracic | STR | Yes | Yes | Yes | NA | |
| [ | 8 | F | 32 | Thoracic | STR | Yes | Yes | Yes | Dead | |
| [ | 9 | F | 56 | NA | GTR | NA | No | Yes | Dead | |
| [ | 10 | M | 35 | Cervical/Thoracic | STR | No | Yes | Yes | Alive at 4-month follow-up | |
| [ | 11 | M | 37 | Cervical/Thoracic | STR | No | No | Yes | Alive at 11-month follow-up | |
| [ | 12 | F | 46 | Cervical | No | Yes | Yes | No | Alive at 2-month follow-up | |
| [ | 13 | F | 16 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | Dead | |
| [ | 1 | M | 52 | Thoracic/Brain | NA | NA | NA | NA | Alive at 2-month follow-up | |
| [ | 2 | F | 24 | Cervical/Thoracic/Lumbar | NA | NA | NA | NA | Alive at 14-month follow-up | |
| [ | 3 | F | 30 | Thoracic | GTR | Yes | Yes | No | Alive at 17-month follow-up | |
| [ | 4 | M | 36 | Thoracic | STR | Yes | Yes | Yes | Alive at 55-month follow-up | |
| [ | 5 | F | 37 | Thoracic | Resection | Yes | No | Yes | Alive at 62-month follow-up | |
| [ | 6 | F | 35 | Cervical/Thoracic | STR | Yes | Yes | No | Alive at 63-month follow-up | |
| [ | 7 | M | 52 | Cervical/Thoracic/Lumbar | Resection | Yes | Yes | No | Dead | |
| [ | 8 | M | 29 | Cervical | STR | Yes | Yes | Yes | Dead | |
| [ | 13 | F | 40 | Spinal | NA | Yes | NA | NA | NA |
Yrs years, GTR gross total resection, STR subtotal resection, IMRT intensity-modulated radiation therapy, M male, F female, NA not available
Fig. 2Histologic features of the primary tumor assessed by routine Hematoxylin and Eosin stain demonstrating perivascular pseudo-rosettes surrounding capillaries showing a microvascular proliferation (20× magnification), with b focal clear cell ependymoma (20× magnification). c Mitotically active cells are denoted by the asterisk (*) (40× magnification). The tumor cells demonstrated d strong perivascular GFAP (20× magnification), e sparse Olig-2 nuclear staining (20× magnification), and f dot-like EMA reactivity (40× magnification). The histopathologic findings were similar in the primary and recurrent tumors
Fig. 3Somatic copy number alterations (CNA) on chromosome 8 (a) and chromosome 17 (b) are shown as derived from enhanced exome sequencing data. The blue points represent log2 values based on sequence depth in 100 bp windows. The red line indicates segmented CNA calls. The MYC (8q24) amplification is highlighted by the arrow. c Distribution of MYC gene expression in ependymomas (n = 41), gliomas (n = 300), medulloblastomas (n = 129), and neuroblastoma (n = 199) amid the UCSC Treehouse cohort and patients enrolled on our translational cancer protocol with the red points indicating our described patient case. The shape indicates timepoint (circle = primary tumor, triangle = recurrent tumor). d Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) of the MYC locus (red) demonstrates gene amplification (> 20 signals compared to chromosome 8 centromere in green) with signal pattern most consistent with double minute formation
Fig. 4a t-SNE showing DNA methylation array-based clustering of the described patient case (enlarged black dot) with a reference cohort of n = 501 tumors spanning across ten established molecular EPN groups [20, 38] and b a subset restricted to the four established spinal EPN groups. In both analyses, the MYC-amplified case (enlarged black dot) clustered with the SP-MYCN group. SP-MP (spinal myxopapillary ependymoma), SP-EP (spinal anaplastic ependymoma), SP-SE (spinal subependymoma), SP-MYCN (spinal ependymoma, MYCN-amplified), ST-SE (supratentorial subependymoma), ST-YAP1 (supratentorial ependymoma YAP1-fused), ST-ZFTA (supratentorial ependymoma ZFTA-fused), PF-SE (posterior fossa subependymoma), PFA (posterior fossa group A), PFB (posterior fossa group B). c Copy number plot showing a prominent amplification at the MYC locus (chr8), but no alteration at the MYCN locus (chr2)