Cargando…

Does CSF1 overexpression or rearrangement influence biological behaviour in tenosynovial giant cell tumours of the knee?

AIMS: Localised‐ and diffuse‐type tenosynovial giant cell tumours (TGCT) are regarded as different clinical and radiological TGCT types. However, genetically and histopathologically they seem indistinguishable. We aimed to correlate CSF1 expression and CSF1 rearrangement with the biological behaviou...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mastboom, Monique J L, Hoek, Daisy M, Bovée, Judith V M G, van de Sande, Michiel A J, Szuhai, Károly
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7379608/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30152874
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/his.13744
_version_ 1783562679366975488
author Mastboom, Monique J L
Hoek, Daisy M
Bovée, Judith V M G
van de Sande, Michiel A J
Szuhai, Károly
author_facet Mastboom, Monique J L
Hoek, Daisy M
Bovée, Judith V M G
van de Sande, Michiel A J
Szuhai, Károly
author_sort Mastboom, Monique J L
collection PubMed
description AIMS: Localised‐ and diffuse‐type tenosynovial giant cell tumours (TGCT) are regarded as different clinical and radiological TGCT types. However, genetically and histopathologically they seem indistinguishable. We aimed to correlate CSF1 expression and CSF1 rearrangement with the biological behaviour of different TGCT‐types with clinical outcome (recurrence). METHODS AND RESULTS: Along a continuum of extremes, therapy‐naive knee TGCT patients with >3‐year follow‐up, mean age 43 (range = 6–71) years and 56% females were selected. Nine localised (two recurrences), 16 diffuse‐type (nine recurrences) and four synovitis as control were included. Rearrangement of the CSF1 locus was evaluated with split‐apart fluorescence in‐situ hybridisation (FISH) probes. Regions were selected to score after identifying CSF1‐expressing regions, using mRNA ISH with the help of digital correlative microscopy. CSF1 rearrangement was considered positive in samples containing >2 split signals/100 nuclei. Irrespective of TGCT‐subtype, all cases showed CSF1 expression and in 76% CSF1 rearrangement was detected. Quantification of CSF1‐expressing cells was not informative, due to the extensive intratumour heterogeneity. Of the four synovitis cases, two also showed CSF1 expression without CSF1 rearrangement. No correlation between CSF1 expression or rearrangement with clinical subtype and local recurrence was detected. Both localised and diffuse TGCT cases showed a scattered distribution in the tissue of CSF1‐expressing cells. CONCLUSION: In diagnosing TGCT,CSF1 mRNA‐ISH, in combination with CSF1 split‐apart FISH using digital correlative microscopy, is an auxiliary diagnostic tool to identify rarely occurring neoplastic cells. This combined approach allowed us to detect CSF1 rearrangement in 76% of the TGCT cases. Neither CSF1 expression nor presence of CSF1 rearrangement could be associated with the difference in biological behaviour of TGCT.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7379608
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-73796082020-07-24 Does CSF1 overexpression or rearrangement influence biological behaviour in tenosynovial giant cell tumours of the knee? Mastboom, Monique J L Hoek, Daisy M Bovée, Judith V M G van de Sande, Michiel A J Szuhai, Károly Histopathology Original Articles AIMS: Localised‐ and diffuse‐type tenosynovial giant cell tumours (TGCT) are regarded as different clinical and radiological TGCT types. However, genetically and histopathologically they seem indistinguishable. We aimed to correlate CSF1 expression and CSF1 rearrangement with the biological behaviour of different TGCT‐types with clinical outcome (recurrence). METHODS AND RESULTS: Along a continuum of extremes, therapy‐naive knee TGCT patients with >3‐year follow‐up, mean age 43 (range = 6–71) years and 56% females were selected. Nine localised (two recurrences), 16 diffuse‐type (nine recurrences) and four synovitis as control were included. Rearrangement of the CSF1 locus was evaluated with split‐apart fluorescence in‐situ hybridisation (FISH) probes. Regions were selected to score after identifying CSF1‐expressing regions, using mRNA ISH with the help of digital correlative microscopy. CSF1 rearrangement was considered positive in samples containing >2 split signals/100 nuclei. Irrespective of TGCT‐subtype, all cases showed CSF1 expression and in 76% CSF1 rearrangement was detected. Quantification of CSF1‐expressing cells was not informative, due to the extensive intratumour heterogeneity. Of the four synovitis cases, two also showed CSF1 expression without CSF1 rearrangement. No correlation between CSF1 expression or rearrangement with clinical subtype and local recurrence was detected. Both localised and diffuse TGCT cases showed a scattered distribution in the tissue of CSF1‐expressing cells. CONCLUSION: In diagnosing TGCT,CSF1 mRNA‐ISH, in combination with CSF1 split‐apart FISH using digital correlative microscopy, is an auxiliary diagnostic tool to identify rarely occurring neoplastic cells. This combined approach allowed us to detect CSF1 rearrangement in 76% of the TGCT cases. Neither CSF1 expression nor presence of CSF1 rearrangement could be associated with the difference in biological behaviour of TGCT. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2018-11-11 2019-01 /pmc/articles/PMC7379608/ /pubmed/30152874 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/his.13744 Text en © 2018 The Authors. Histopathology Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Mastboom, Monique J L
Hoek, Daisy M
Bovée, Judith V M G
van de Sande, Michiel A J
Szuhai, Károly
Does CSF1 overexpression or rearrangement influence biological behaviour in tenosynovial giant cell tumours of the knee?
title Does CSF1 overexpression or rearrangement influence biological behaviour in tenosynovial giant cell tumours of the knee?
title_full Does CSF1 overexpression or rearrangement influence biological behaviour in tenosynovial giant cell tumours of the knee?
title_fullStr Does CSF1 overexpression or rearrangement influence biological behaviour in tenosynovial giant cell tumours of the knee?
title_full_unstemmed Does CSF1 overexpression or rearrangement influence biological behaviour in tenosynovial giant cell tumours of the knee?
title_short Does CSF1 overexpression or rearrangement influence biological behaviour in tenosynovial giant cell tumours of the knee?
title_sort does csf1 overexpression or rearrangement influence biological behaviour in tenosynovial giant cell tumours of the knee?
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7379608/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30152874
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/his.13744
work_keys_str_mv AT mastboommoniquejl doescsf1overexpressionorrearrangementinfluencebiologicalbehaviourintenosynovialgiantcelltumoursoftheknee
AT hoekdaisym doescsf1overexpressionorrearrangementinfluencebiologicalbehaviourintenosynovialgiantcelltumoursoftheknee
AT boveejudithvmg doescsf1overexpressionorrearrangementinfluencebiologicalbehaviourintenosynovialgiantcelltumoursoftheknee
AT vandesandemichielaj doescsf1overexpressionorrearrangementinfluencebiologicalbehaviourintenosynovialgiantcelltumoursoftheknee
AT szuhaikaroly doescsf1overexpressionorrearrangementinfluencebiologicalbehaviourintenosynovialgiantcelltumoursoftheknee