Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Survival and NF1 Analysis in a Cohort of Orthopedics Patients with Malignant Peripheral Nerve Sheath Tumors

Survival and NF1 Analysis in a Cohort of Orthopedics Patients with Malignant Peripheral Nerve... Hindawi Sarcoma Volume 2021, Article ID 9386823, 6 pages https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/9386823 Research Article Survival andNF1 Analysis in a Cohort of Orthopedics Patients with Malignant Peripheral Nerve Sheath Tumors 1 2,3 4 2 Daniel K. Knewitz, Colin J. Anderson, William T. Presley, MaryBeth Horodyski, 2,5 4,5,6 Mark T. Scarborough, and Margaret R. Wallace University of Florida College of Medicine, MS3, Gainesville, FL, USA Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, USA Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Levine Cancer Institute and Musculoskeletal Institute, Carolinas Medical Center–Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC, USA Department of Molecular Genetics & Microbiology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, USA University of Florida Health Cancer Center, Gainesville, FL, USA University of Florida Genetics Institute, Gainesville, FL, USA Correspondence should be addressed to Margaret R. Wallace; peggyw@ufl.edu Received 6 April 2021; Accepted 18 September 2021; Published 4 October 2021 Academic Editor: Kanya Honoki Copyright © 2021 Daniel K. Knewitz et al. ,is is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) is an autosomal dominant tumor syndrome in which benign plexiform neurofibromas are at risk of transforming into malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors (MPNSTs), a very rare soft-tissue sarcoma. ,e prognosis of patients with MPNSTs is poor, with most studies reporting <50% survival at five years. However, studies evaluating MPNSTs are limited and report heterogeneous results. Because no MPNST-specific evidence-based treatment guideline exists, individual institutional experiences are very informative to the field. ,e main objective of this study was to investigate and report MPNST prognostic clinical and genetic biomarkers from our institution’s Orthopedics service experience treating 20 cases from 1992 to 2017. Most patients were treated with resection and adjuvant radiation. Extended follow-up, averaging 11.4 years (ranging 1.1 to 25.1), revealed excellent five-year survival rates: 70% for overall and 60% for metastatic disease. An S100 B immunonegative tumor phenotype was associated with a significantly worse outcome than MPNSTs with positive S100 B stain. In addition, NF1 gene mutation analysis was performed on 27 families with NF1 in which at least one affected family member developed MPNSTs. Of the 27NF1 germline mutations, five were large deletions spanning (or nearly spanning) the gene (18.5%), substantially more than such deletions in NF1 in general, consistent with increased risk of MPNSTs in such cases. of neurofibromas in their lifetimes. Neurofibromas are 1. Introduction classified as “cutaneous” when they are superficial, involving Neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) is an incurable progressive nerve endings in the skin; larger and usually deeper autosomal dominant disease. Despite an NF1 incidence of 1 “plexiform neurofibromas” involve peripheral nerves [2]. in 3000 people, the first effective systemic therapy with the Plexiform neurofibromas are thought to be congenital in MEK inhibitor selumetinib was only recently FDA ap- origin and occur in about 50% of patients [2]. Plexiform proved, in 2020 [1]. NF1 is caused by heterozygous germline neurofibromas can grow quite large and are estimated to mutations in the NF1 gene, of which over 5000 have been have a 10–30% risk of malignant transformation into a identified spanning the large locus. ,e clinical hallmark of malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor—a rare type of NF1 is the neurofibroma, a benign peripheral nerve sheath soft-tissue sarcoma—particularly if they have a nodular Schwann-cell tumor. Patients can develop few to thousands phenotype [2]. MPNSTs are rare, affecting only 1.4 in 2 Sarcoma 100,000 people, with half of such cases occurring in NF1 therapeutic history, immunohistochemical S100 B data from patients [3]. MPNSTs are not reported to show a predilection a pathology service, and survival status. toward a specific anatomical region of the body. Cutaneous cases of MPNSTs have been described, but they do not 2.2.NF1GeneMutationAnalysis. NF1 mutation analysis was typically occur in NF1 patients [4]. Overall, the lifetime risk performed on DNA samples from the IRB-approved Wal- of MPNSTs in NF1 patients is estimated at 12–15% [5]. In lace Genetics Bank from 27 NF1 families bearing at least one reported studies, the MPNST 5-year survival rate is usually MPNST occurrence. Previously existing data included some reported as less than 50% [6] and thus the prognosis is NF1 cDNA Sanger sequencing, while current testing in- generally considered poor. cluded PCR and sequencing of 13 exons (4, 5, 11, 13, 14, 16, Because of its rarity, there have been few clinical trials 18, 20, 22, 26, 28, 32, 40, and 46) of the 57 exons in the locus specifically for patients with MPNSTs and information about (NCBI gene sequence: NG_009018.1) (methods described in natural history and response to therapies in the literature is [16, 17]). In addition, all samples were screened for large sparse. Typically, MPNSTs are managed with treatment deletions using four TaqMan NF1 copy-number assays protocols for soft-tissue sarcomas, as protocols specific to across the gene (,ermoFisher; Hs05477010, Hs06413401, MPNSTs have not been established [7]. Early surgery has Hs05512625, and Hs03960106) (Center for Pharmacoge- been shown to be an effective treatment [8] with a goal of nomics Core, UF Clinical and Translational Institute). resecting the tumor with wide or negative margins. Adjuvant radiation or chemotherapy regimens have also been used at different institutions to reduce the risk of local recurrence or 2.3. Statistical Analysis. All data were analyzed using sta- to treat systemic disease [7]. Although recent trials with tistical software (SPSS 25, IBM Co. Armonk, NY). ,e novel targeted therapies have so far proven ineffective, re- significance level for analyses was set a priori at p< 0.05. current gene mutations that have been associated with more Descriptive statistics were computed for demographic and aggressive tumors in patients with NF1, such as the poly- clinical variables. Kaplan–Meier survival curves were gen- comb repressive complex 2 (PRC2) core components, em- erated to assess the overall survival of the study population bryonic ectoderm development protein (EED), and and compare between demographic, clinical, survival, and suppressor of zeste 12 homolog (SUZ12), may serve as future pathological variables. treatment targets [9–12]. ,ere is some controversy in the literature regarding germlineNF1 mutation effect on the risk 3. Results of developing an MPNST. Some studies reported a higher incidence of deletions spanning the entire NF1 locus and A total of twenty subjects (14 males and 6 females) qualified surrounding genes in NF1 patients who develop an MPNST for this study’s retrospective chart review. Demographic than the NF1 population overall [13], while other reports did characteristics are provided in Table 1. not find such a trend [14]. With respect to race, 12, 6, and 1 subject(s) were ,ere are a limited number of publications reporting Caucasian, black, and Hispanic, respectively. Race was not MPNSTsurvival, most with small case numbers and variable identified in the medical record of one subject. ,e mean outcomes, not unexpected for such a rare tumor. ,us, total length of follow-up was 136.9 months. ,e survival rate experience from institutions managing patients with for the entire study population was approximately 70% MPNSTs is important to add to the field’s knowledge [15]. (Figure 1). ,e purpose of our study was to evaluate both clinical and Two subjects had local recurrence, and five had subse- NF1 mutation data from the MPNST population at our quent metastasis. ,e mean time to local recurrence and institution to identify prognostic factors. time to metastasis were 134.9 and 113.6 months, respec- tively. Both subjects with local recurrence received radiation therapy. At the last follow-up for all subjects, 14 were alive 2. Materials and Methods and 6 were deceased. Two of the five subjects who developed 2.1. Clinical and Demographic Data Collection. As approved subsequent metastasis were alive at the last follow-up (2018) by the University of Florida Institutional Review Board, a and survived an average of 197.9 months (range 85.7 to retrospective medical chart review of 1992 to 2017 was 309.8) after diagnosis of metastasis. Four of these metastases performed from 1992 to 2017 to gather data on our insti- targeted the lung, and one subject developed metastasis in tution’s Division of Orthopedic Oncology’s experience of the brain. ,e five-year survival rate of patients with met- treating patients with MPNSTs. ,e data were extracted astatic disease was 60%. ,e female gender was associated with better cumulative from an EPIC electronic medical record service and from the Enneking/Anspach Research Center database in the De- survival outcomes, and the difference was not significant partment of Orthopedics and Rehabilitation. Inclusion (p � 0.45). Black subjects were found to have better cu- criteria were (1) diagnosis of MPNSTs, (2) definitive treat- mulative survival outcomes than Caucasian and Hispanic ment performed at our institution, and (3) at least 12 months subjects; however, the difference was not significant of follow-up data. Demographic and clinical information (p � 0.25). ,e most common primary MPNST locations in collection included gender, self-reported ethnic group, age at this patient population were the lower extremities (n � 11) initial diagnosis, tumor stage at first diagnosis, time to re- and the upper extremities (n � 8), followed by the neck currence, diagnosis of NF1, family history of NF1, (n � 1). Six subjects had a diagnosis of NF1. Five subjects Sarcoma 3 Table 1: Subject demographics and clinical survival information. Mean Std. dev. Range Minimum Maximum Age at diagnosis (years) 43.4 18.4 75.4 6.0 81.4 Time to local recurrence or last follow-up (months) 134.9 102.1 309.9 4.9 314.8 Time to metastasis or last follow-up (months) 113.6 100.0 284.8 4.9 289.7 Total follow-up (months) 136.9 99.8 301.1 13.7 314.8 were NF1-negative, and the NF1 status for nine subjects was Survival Function indeterminate. Although subjects with negative NF1 status 1.0 were found to have better cumulative survival outcomes, the difference was not significant (p � 0.39). Tumor-grade classifications were low (n � 2), interme- 0.8 diate (n � 3), and high (n � 15). Low-grade tumors were found to have better cumulative survival than intermediate 0.6 and high, although the difference was not significant (p � 0.63). AJCC 8th Education Stage classification of the patients was as follows: IA � 2, II � 4, IIIA � 8, IIIB � 6. 0.4 Patients with stage IA and II tumors were all alive at the last follow-up. Overall comparison between stages failed to re- 0.2 veal a significant difference in cumulative survival (p � 0.26). S100 B immunohistochemistry status was re- ported positive in 9 tumors, negative in 4, and could not be 0.0 determined in 7. Subjects with positive S100 B status were .00 100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00 shown to have a significantly better cumulative survival Total Follow-up (months) outcome (p � 0.003) (Figure 2). Survival Function ,ree subjects were treated with resection alone (1 Censored subsequently developed metastasis), 15 were treated with resection and adjuvant radiation, and two subjects were Figure 1: Kaplan–Meier survival curve for all 20 subjects. ,e 5- treated with resection and chemotherapy. Only one of the year survival was approximately 70%. resections involved an amputation. When comparing cu- mulative survival in subjects who received chemotherapy (n � 2) against subjects who did not receive chemotherapy (n � 18), the two subjects receiving chemotherapy had a Survival Functions poorer outcome, although it was nonsignificant (p � 0.69). 1.0 When comparing estimated overall survival in subjects who received radiation (234.1 months) against those who did not (193.9 months), subjects who received radiation had better 0.8 survival, but the difference was not significant (p � 0.89). Among banked DNAs, there were 27 NF1 cases who 0.6 developed MPNSTs and/or had a positive family history of MPNSTs. As shown in Table 2, germline NF1 mutations among these 27 families were distributed as follows: non- 0.4 sense (9), missense (4), frameshift (5), splicing (5), deletion spanning most of the gene (1), and whole-gene deletion (4). 0.2 4. Discussion 0.0 ,e purpose of this study was to evaluate clinical prognostic .00 100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00 factors and genomic biomarkers in patients with MPNSTs Follow-up (months) treated at our institution. As an academic tertiary-care in- stitution, our institution is a referral center for cancer pa- S100B Data tients, including those with MPNSTs, from throughout the undetermined undetermined-censored yes yes-censored US as well as internationally. Most similar studies have no no-censored reported less than a 50% five-year MPNST survival rate [18–30]. Our cohort had a mean follow-up time of 11.4 years Figure 2: Kaplan–Meier survival curve based on MPNST S100 B and a 70% five-year survival rate, the latter of which is status. S100B-negative MPNSTs (green line, n � 4) were associated superior to any previously reported studies (range 38.3–62.5 with a significantly lower survival than S100B-positive tumors (red line, n � 9) (p< 0.003). years) [18, 19, 22–30]. Cum Survival Cum Survival 4 Sarcoma Table 2: MPNST-related NF1 germline mutations. respect to survival. Similar studies with larger cohorts found individual variables associated with survival, such as tumor Mutation Effect Exon size [18, 19, 22, 29], margin status [18, 24–28], NF1 diag- c.499delTGTT Frameshift 5 nostic status [19, 22, 26, 29, 30], and tumor grade c.958 G> Cp.Ala320Pro Missense 9 [19, 21, 22, 28]. c.1039 C> Tp.Gln347X Nonsense 9 Our study had a number of limitations, the foremost c.1782delAG Frameshift 16 being sample size and another being lack of NF1 status in c.2325 G>A Splice error 19 earlier cases. Although a larger sample size might aid in c.2352 G> Ap.Trp784X Nonsense 20 c.2446 C> Tp.Arg816X Nonsense 21 identifying additional significant prognostic factors, it is c.2534insG Frameshift 21 important to report individual institution experiences be- c.2540 T> Cp.Leu847Pro Missense 21 cause of the lack of evidence-based established therapeutic c.2991-1G>A Splice error 23 regimens for MPNST. Information from institutions with c.3113+1G>C Splice error 23 better outcomes may be very useful to other groups. Toward c.3456_3457insA Frameshift 26 this goal, we excluded patients who had received prior C. 3683delC Frameshift 27 MPNST treatment at outside institutions. Although this c.3826 C> Tp.Arg1276X Nonsense 28 allowed evaluation of survival outcomes based solely on care c.4255 A> Tp.Lys1419X Nonsense 32 at our institution, a more varied subject group might have c.4435 A>G Splice error 34 been more representative of the overall US MPNST patient c.4868 A> Tp.Asn1623Val Missense 37 c.5242 C> Tp.Arg1748X Nonsense 38 population experience. c.5914 C> Tp.Gln1981X Nonsense 40 c.6148 C> Tp.Gln2050X Nonsense 42 5. Conclusions c.6302 C> Gp.,r2101Arg Missense 42 c.7285 C> Tp.Arg2429X Nonsense 50 Given the rarity and lack of clinical trial data for MPNSTs, Whole-gene deletion (n � 4) Null All treatment parameters and survival data from multiple in- Large intragenic gene deletion (n � 1) Likely null 2–50 stitutions are needed to move toward improved treatment n � 27. NCBI RefSeq: NM_0000267. and prognosis. It is critical that patients with rare tumors such as MPNSTs be referred to institutions experienced with Consistent with previous reports, we noted that subjects such cancers. Our institutional experience with MPNST with S100B-positive tumors had significantly better out- cases treated in the Orthopedics oncology service, with comes than those with S100B-negative tumors [12]. S100 B is treatment favoring surgical resection and adjuvant radiation, a mature Schwann-cell protein, and loss of immunostaining showed an outstanding five-year survival of 70%. ,is work is consistent with poorer cell differentiation. Further in- also highlighted the potential use of S100 B immunostaining vestigation is needed to evaluate the use of this phenotype to in prognosis. In addition, our study added to the evidence stratify patient risk, along with immunostaining of other that whole-gene germline NF1 deletions are associated with markers in MPNSTs that are of recent interest such as an increased risk of MPNST. polycomb repressor complex 2 epigenetic mark H3K27me3 [31] and HMGA2 [32]. Data Availability ,e frequency of whole-gene deletions (14.8%) in the 27 germline NF1 mutations associated with MPNSTs was ,is study utilized data derived from patient records at our higher in our population than the 4–5% rate of such dele- institution; hence, the data are not available for public re- tions in NF1 patients in general [33]. ,is frequency is even lease. All pertinent HIPAA-compliant data are published in greater when including samples with a deletion of most of the accompanying tables and figures. the gene, extending beyond the 3′ end for an unknown distance. Our result is consistent with previous reports Conflicts of Interest suggesting that individuals with such deletions are at a greater risk for MPNSTs [13, 34, 35]. However, this elevated ,e authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest risk could be related to the increased plexiform neurofi- with regard to this study. broma burden of many such patients [33]. Although a significant difference in survival was not found based on presence of an NF1 diagnosis, patients with Acknowledgments NF1 trended toward a poorer outcome, particularly males: one was still alive at the last follow-up at 314.8 months after ,e authors thank the University of Florida College of metastasis, but three (including one with metastatic disease) Medicine’s Medical Student Research Program for DKK’s had survival under five years (52.43 months after metastasis, support while performing this work. ,e mutation analysis 13.74 months after diagnosis, and 17.23 months after di- work was supported through Neurofibromatosis ,era- agnosis, respectively). ,e two NF1 female subjects are both peutic Acceleration Program (NTAP) funding to MRW. ,e still alive (108.78 months after metastasis and 256.61 months authors also thank Dr. Hua Li for technical assistance; her after diagnosis). ,is study was underpowered to detect contribution and that of MRW were in part also supported relationships between race, gender, and other factors with by a DOD grant to MRW (Award #W81XWH-20-1-0355). Sarcoma 5 [17] H. Li, L.-J. Chang, D. R. Neubauer, D. F. Muir, and References M. R. Wallace, “Immortalization of human normal and NF1 [1] First Drug Approved for NF, “Children’s tumor foundation,” neurofibroma Schwann cells,” Laboratory Investigation, 2018, https://www.ctf.org/first-drug-approved-for-nf. vol. 96, no. 10, pp. 1105–1115, 2016. [2] D. H. Gutmann, R. E. Ferner, and R. H. Listernick, “Neu- [18] C. Zou, K. D. Smith, J. Liu et al., “Clinical, pathological, and rofibromatosis type 1,” Nature Reviews Disease Primers, vol. 3, molecular variables predictive of malignant peripheral nerve Article ID 17004, 2017. sheath tumor outcome,” Annals of Surgery, vol. 249, no. 6, [3] J. E. Bates, C. R. Peterson, S. Dhakal, E. J. Giampoli, and pp. 1014–1022, 2009. L. S. Constine, “Malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors [19] D. E. Porter, V. Prasad, and L. Foster, “Survival in malignant (MPNST): a SEER analysis of incidence across the age peripheral nerve sheath tumours: a comparison between spectrum and therapeutic interventions in the pediatric sporadic and neurofibromatosis type 1-associated tumours,” population,” Pediatric Blood and Cancer, vol. 61, no. 11, Sarcoma, vol. 2009, Article ID 756395, 5 pages, 2009. pp. 1955–1960, 2014. [20] M. Anghileri, R. Miceli, M. Fiore et al., “Malignant peripheral [4] B. Luzar and G. Falconieri, “Cutaneous malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors,” Cancer, vol. 107, no. 5, pp. 1065–1074, nerve sheath tumor,” Surgical Pathology Clinics, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 337–343, 2017. [21] S. Ingham, S. M. Huson, A. Moran, J. Wylie, M. Leahy, and [5] E. Uusitalo, J. Leppavirta, A. Koffert et al., “Incidence and D. G. R. Evans, “Malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumours mortality of neurofibromatosis: a total population study in in NF1: improved survival in women and in recent years,” Finland,” Journal of Investigative Dermatology, vol. 135, no. 3, European Journal of Cancer, vol. 47, no. 18, pp. 2723–2728, pp. 904–906, 2015. [6] J. F. Longo, S. N. Brosius, L. Black et al., “ErbB4 promotes [22] C.-C. H. Stucky, K. N. Johnson, R. J. Gray et al., “Malignant malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor pathogenesis via peripheral nerve sheath tumors (MPNST): the Mayo Clinic Ras-independent mechanisms,” Cell Communication and experience,” Annals of Surgical Oncology, vol. 19, no. 3, Signaling: CCS, vol. 17, p. 74, Article ID 74, 2019. pp. 878–885, 2012. [7] D. Bradford and A. Kim, “Current treatment options for [23] O. Goertz, S. Langer, D. Uthoff et al., “Diagnosis, treatment malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors,” Current and survival of 65 patients with malignant peripheral nerve Treatment Options in Oncology, vol. 16, p. 328, Article ID 12, sheath tumors,” Anticancer Research, vol. 34, no. 2, 2015. pp. 777–783, 2014. [8] Z. C. Liao, C. Zhang, and X. Y. Liu, “Targeted therapy for [24] J. Kahn, A. Gillespie, M. Tsokos et al., “Radiation therapy in malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor: translational re- management of sporadic and neurofibromatosis type 1-as- search and clinical application,” Zhonghua Zhongliu Zazhi, sociated malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors,” Frontiers vol. 41, no. 9, pp. 648–653, 2019. in Oncology, vol. 4, p. 324, Article ID 324, 2014. [9] L. M. Kayes, W. Burke, and V. M. Riccardi, “Deletions [25] T. Valentin, A. Le Cesne, I. Ray-Coquard et al., “Management spanning the neurofibromatosis 1 gene: identification and and prognosis of malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors: phenotype of five patients,” 6e American Journal of Human the experience of the French Sarcoma Group (GSF-GETO),” Genetics, vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 424–436, 1994. European Journal of Cancer, vol. 56, pp. 77–84, 2016. [10] M. H. Cnossen, M. N. Van Der Est, M. H. Breuning et al., [26] S. Le Guellec, A.-V. Decouvelaere, T. Filleron et al., “Ma- “Deletions spanning the neurofibromatosis type 1 gene: im- lignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor is a challenging di- plications for genotype-phenotype correlations in neurofi- agnosis,” 6e American Journal of Surgical Pathology, vol. 40, bromatosis type 1?” Human Mutation, vol. 9, no. 5, no. 7, pp. 896–908, 2016. pp. 458–464, 1997. [27] K. L. Watson, G. A. Al Sannaa, C. M. Kivlin et al., “Patterns of [11] A. S. Rohl, E. Kahen, S. J. Yoder, J. K. Teer, and D. R. Reed, recurrence and survival in sporadic, neurofibromatosis type 1- “,e genomic landscape of malignant peripheral nerve sheath associated, and radiation-associated malignant peripheral tumors: diverse drivers of Ras pathway activation,” Scientific nerve sheath tumors,” Journal of Neurosurgery, vol. 126, no. 1, Reports, vol. 7, Article ID 14992, 2017. pp. 319–329, 2017. [12] E. Martin, I. Asem, D. J. Grunhagen, J. V. M. G. Bovee, and [28] I. K. Hwang, S. M. Hahn, H. S. Kim et al., “Outcomes of C. Verhoef, “Prognostic significance of immunohistochemical treatment for malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors: biomarkers and genetic alterations in malignant peripheral different clinical features associated with neurofibromatosis nerve sheath tumors: a systematic review,” Frontiers in On- type 1,” Cancer Research and Treatment, vol. 49, no. 3, cology, vol. 10, Article ID 594069, 2020. pp. 717–726, 2017. [13] T. De Raedt, H. Brems, P. Wolkenstein et al., “Elevated risk for [29] M. Carli, A. Ferrari, A. Mattke et al., “Pediatric malignant MPNST in NF1 microdeletion patients,” 6e American peripheral nerve sheath tumor: the Italian and German soft Journal of Human Genetics, vol. 72, no. 5, pp. 1288–1292, tissue sarcoma cooperative group,” Journal of Clinical On- 2003. cology, vol. 23, no. 33, pp. 8422–8430, 2005. [14] G. Spurlock, S. Griffiths, J. Uff, and M. Upadhyaya, “Somatic [30] E. Martin, J. H. Coert, U. E. Flucke et al., “A nationwide cohort study on treatment and survival in patients with malignant alterations of the NF1 gene in an NF1 individual with multiple benign tumours (internal and external) and malignant tu- peripheral nerve sheath tumours,” European Journal of mour types,” Familial Cancer, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 463–471, 2007. Cancer, vol. 124, pp. 77–87, 2020. [15] S. L. Carroll, “,e challenge of cancer genomics in rare [31] J. S. Nix, M. C. Haffner, S. Ahsan et al., “Malignant peripheral nervous system neoplasms,” American Journal Of Pathology, nerve sheath tumors show decreased global DNA methyla- vol. 186, no. 3, pp. 464–477, 2016. tion,” Journal of Neuropathology & Experimental Neurology, [16] C. R. Abernathy, S. A. Rasmussen, H. J. Stalker et al., “NF1 vol. 77, no. 10, pp. 958–963, 2018. mutation analysis using a combined heteroduplex/SSCP ap- [32] K. Yang, W. Guo, T. Ren et al., “Knockdown of HMGA2 proach,” Human Mutation, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 548–554, 1997. regulates the level of autophagy via interactions between MSI2 6 Sarcoma and Beclin1 to inhibit NF1-associated malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumour growth,” Journal of Experimental & Clinical Cancer Research: Climate Research, vol. 38, no. 1, p. 185, 2019. [33] H. Kehrer-Sawatzki, V.-F. Mautner, and D. N. Cooper, “Emerging genotype-phenotype relationships in patients with large NF1 deletions,” Human Genetics, vol. 136, no. 4, pp. 349–376, 2017. [34] L. Kluwe, R. E. Friedrich, M. Peiper, J. Friedman, and V. F. Mautner, “Constitutional NF1 mutations in neurofi- bromatosis 1 patients with malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors,” Human Mutation, vol. 22, no. 5, p. 420, 2003. [35] I. Bottillo, T. Ahlquist, H. Brekke et al., “Germline and somaticNF1mutations in sporadic and NF1-associated ma- lignant peripheral nerve sheath tumours,” 6e Journal of Pathology, vol. 217, no. 5, pp. 693–701, 2009. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Sarcoma Hindawi Publishing Corporation

Survival and NF1 Analysis in a Cohort of Orthopedics Patients with Malignant Peripheral Nerve Sheath Tumors

Loading next page...
 
/lp/hindawi-publishing-corporation/survival-and-nf1-analysis-in-a-cohort-of-orthopedics-patients-with-GkzhV5BQvH
Publisher
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Copyright
Copyright © 2021 Daniel K. Knewitz et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
ISSN
1357-714X
eISSN
1369-1643
DOI
10.1155/2021/9386823
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Hindawi Sarcoma Volume 2021, Article ID 9386823, 6 pages https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/9386823 Research Article Survival andNF1 Analysis in a Cohort of Orthopedics Patients with Malignant Peripheral Nerve Sheath Tumors 1 2,3 4 2 Daniel K. Knewitz, Colin J. Anderson, William T. Presley, MaryBeth Horodyski, 2,5 4,5,6 Mark T. Scarborough, and Margaret R. Wallace University of Florida College of Medicine, MS3, Gainesville, FL, USA Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, USA Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Levine Cancer Institute and Musculoskeletal Institute, Carolinas Medical Center–Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC, USA Department of Molecular Genetics & Microbiology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, USA University of Florida Health Cancer Center, Gainesville, FL, USA University of Florida Genetics Institute, Gainesville, FL, USA Correspondence should be addressed to Margaret R. Wallace; peggyw@ufl.edu Received 6 April 2021; Accepted 18 September 2021; Published 4 October 2021 Academic Editor: Kanya Honoki Copyright © 2021 Daniel K. Knewitz et al. ,is is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) is an autosomal dominant tumor syndrome in which benign plexiform neurofibromas are at risk of transforming into malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors (MPNSTs), a very rare soft-tissue sarcoma. ,e prognosis of patients with MPNSTs is poor, with most studies reporting <50% survival at five years. However, studies evaluating MPNSTs are limited and report heterogeneous results. Because no MPNST-specific evidence-based treatment guideline exists, individual institutional experiences are very informative to the field. ,e main objective of this study was to investigate and report MPNST prognostic clinical and genetic biomarkers from our institution’s Orthopedics service experience treating 20 cases from 1992 to 2017. Most patients were treated with resection and adjuvant radiation. Extended follow-up, averaging 11.4 years (ranging 1.1 to 25.1), revealed excellent five-year survival rates: 70% for overall and 60% for metastatic disease. An S100 B immunonegative tumor phenotype was associated with a significantly worse outcome than MPNSTs with positive S100 B stain. In addition, NF1 gene mutation analysis was performed on 27 families with NF1 in which at least one affected family member developed MPNSTs. Of the 27NF1 germline mutations, five were large deletions spanning (or nearly spanning) the gene (18.5%), substantially more than such deletions in NF1 in general, consistent with increased risk of MPNSTs in such cases. of neurofibromas in their lifetimes. Neurofibromas are 1. Introduction classified as “cutaneous” when they are superficial, involving Neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) is an incurable progressive nerve endings in the skin; larger and usually deeper autosomal dominant disease. Despite an NF1 incidence of 1 “plexiform neurofibromas” involve peripheral nerves [2]. in 3000 people, the first effective systemic therapy with the Plexiform neurofibromas are thought to be congenital in MEK inhibitor selumetinib was only recently FDA ap- origin and occur in about 50% of patients [2]. Plexiform proved, in 2020 [1]. NF1 is caused by heterozygous germline neurofibromas can grow quite large and are estimated to mutations in the NF1 gene, of which over 5000 have been have a 10–30% risk of malignant transformation into a identified spanning the large locus. ,e clinical hallmark of malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor—a rare type of NF1 is the neurofibroma, a benign peripheral nerve sheath soft-tissue sarcoma—particularly if they have a nodular Schwann-cell tumor. Patients can develop few to thousands phenotype [2]. MPNSTs are rare, affecting only 1.4 in 2 Sarcoma 100,000 people, with half of such cases occurring in NF1 therapeutic history, immunohistochemical S100 B data from patients [3]. MPNSTs are not reported to show a predilection a pathology service, and survival status. toward a specific anatomical region of the body. Cutaneous cases of MPNSTs have been described, but they do not 2.2.NF1GeneMutationAnalysis. NF1 mutation analysis was typically occur in NF1 patients [4]. Overall, the lifetime risk performed on DNA samples from the IRB-approved Wal- of MPNSTs in NF1 patients is estimated at 12–15% [5]. In lace Genetics Bank from 27 NF1 families bearing at least one reported studies, the MPNST 5-year survival rate is usually MPNST occurrence. Previously existing data included some reported as less than 50% [6] and thus the prognosis is NF1 cDNA Sanger sequencing, while current testing in- generally considered poor. cluded PCR and sequencing of 13 exons (4, 5, 11, 13, 14, 16, Because of its rarity, there have been few clinical trials 18, 20, 22, 26, 28, 32, 40, and 46) of the 57 exons in the locus specifically for patients with MPNSTs and information about (NCBI gene sequence: NG_009018.1) (methods described in natural history and response to therapies in the literature is [16, 17]). In addition, all samples were screened for large sparse. Typically, MPNSTs are managed with treatment deletions using four TaqMan NF1 copy-number assays protocols for soft-tissue sarcomas, as protocols specific to across the gene (,ermoFisher; Hs05477010, Hs06413401, MPNSTs have not been established [7]. Early surgery has Hs05512625, and Hs03960106) (Center for Pharmacoge- been shown to be an effective treatment [8] with a goal of nomics Core, UF Clinical and Translational Institute). resecting the tumor with wide or negative margins. Adjuvant radiation or chemotherapy regimens have also been used at different institutions to reduce the risk of local recurrence or 2.3. Statistical Analysis. All data were analyzed using sta- to treat systemic disease [7]. Although recent trials with tistical software (SPSS 25, IBM Co. Armonk, NY). ,e novel targeted therapies have so far proven ineffective, re- significance level for analyses was set a priori at p< 0.05. current gene mutations that have been associated with more Descriptive statistics were computed for demographic and aggressive tumors in patients with NF1, such as the poly- clinical variables. Kaplan–Meier survival curves were gen- comb repressive complex 2 (PRC2) core components, em- erated to assess the overall survival of the study population bryonic ectoderm development protein (EED), and and compare between demographic, clinical, survival, and suppressor of zeste 12 homolog (SUZ12), may serve as future pathological variables. treatment targets [9–12]. ,ere is some controversy in the literature regarding germlineNF1 mutation effect on the risk 3. Results of developing an MPNST. Some studies reported a higher incidence of deletions spanning the entire NF1 locus and A total of twenty subjects (14 males and 6 females) qualified surrounding genes in NF1 patients who develop an MPNST for this study’s retrospective chart review. Demographic than the NF1 population overall [13], while other reports did characteristics are provided in Table 1. not find such a trend [14]. With respect to race, 12, 6, and 1 subject(s) were ,ere are a limited number of publications reporting Caucasian, black, and Hispanic, respectively. Race was not MPNSTsurvival, most with small case numbers and variable identified in the medical record of one subject. ,e mean outcomes, not unexpected for such a rare tumor. ,us, total length of follow-up was 136.9 months. ,e survival rate experience from institutions managing patients with for the entire study population was approximately 70% MPNSTs is important to add to the field’s knowledge [15]. (Figure 1). ,e purpose of our study was to evaluate both clinical and Two subjects had local recurrence, and five had subse- NF1 mutation data from the MPNST population at our quent metastasis. ,e mean time to local recurrence and institution to identify prognostic factors. time to metastasis were 134.9 and 113.6 months, respec- tively. Both subjects with local recurrence received radiation therapy. At the last follow-up for all subjects, 14 were alive 2. Materials and Methods and 6 were deceased. Two of the five subjects who developed 2.1. Clinical and Demographic Data Collection. As approved subsequent metastasis were alive at the last follow-up (2018) by the University of Florida Institutional Review Board, a and survived an average of 197.9 months (range 85.7 to retrospective medical chart review of 1992 to 2017 was 309.8) after diagnosis of metastasis. Four of these metastases performed from 1992 to 2017 to gather data on our insti- targeted the lung, and one subject developed metastasis in tution’s Division of Orthopedic Oncology’s experience of the brain. ,e five-year survival rate of patients with met- treating patients with MPNSTs. ,e data were extracted astatic disease was 60%. ,e female gender was associated with better cumulative from an EPIC electronic medical record service and from the Enneking/Anspach Research Center database in the De- survival outcomes, and the difference was not significant partment of Orthopedics and Rehabilitation. Inclusion (p � 0.45). Black subjects were found to have better cu- criteria were (1) diagnosis of MPNSTs, (2) definitive treat- mulative survival outcomes than Caucasian and Hispanic ment performed at our institution, and (3) at least 12 months subjects; however, the difference was not significant of follow-up data. Demographic and clinical information (p � 0.25). ,e most common primary MPNST locations in collection included gender, self-reported ethnic group, age at this patient population were the lower extremities (n � 11) initial diagnosis, tumor stage at first diagnosis, time to re- and the upper extremities (n � 8), followed by the neck currence, diagnosis of NF1, family history of NF1, (n � 1). Six subjects had a diagnosis of NF1. Five subjects Sarcoma 3 Table 1: Subject demographics and clinical survival information. Mean Std. dev. Range Minimum Maximum Age at diagnosis (years) 43.4 18.4 75.4 6.0 81.4 Time to local recurrence or last follow-up (months) 134.9 102.1 309.9 4.9 314.8 Time to metastasis or last follow-up (months) 113.6 100.0 284.8 4.9 289.7 Total follow-up (months) 136.9 99.8 301.1 13.7 314.8 were NF1-negative, and the NF1 status for nine subjects was Survival Function indeterminate. Although subjects with negative NF1 status 1.0 were found to have better cumulative survival outcomes, the difference was not significant (p � 0.39). Tumor-grade classifications were low (n � 2), interme- 0.8 diate (n � 3), and high (n � 15). Low-grade tumors were found to have better cumulative survival than intermediate 0.6 and high, although the difference was not significant (p � 0.63). AJCC 8th Education Stage classification of the patients was as follows: IA � 2, II � 4, IIIA � 8, IIIB � 6. 0.4 Patients with stage IA and II tumors were all alive at the last follow-up. Overall comparison between stages failed to re- 0.2 veal a significant difference in cumulative survival (p � 0.26). S100 B immunohistochemistry status was re- ported positive in 9 tumors, negative in 4, and could not be 0.0 determined in 7. Subjects with positive S100 B status were .00 100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00 shown to have a significantly better cumulative survival Total Follow-up (months) outcome (p � 0.003) (Figure 2). Survival Function ,ree subjects were treated with resection alone (1 Censored subsequently developed metastasis), 15 were treated with resection and adjuvant radiation, and two subjects were Figure 1: Kaplan–Meier survival curve for all 20 subjects. ,e 5- treated with resection and chemotherapy. Only one of the year survival was approximately 70%. resections involved an amputation. When comparing cu- mulative survival in subjects who received chemotherapy (n � 2) against subjects who did not receive chemotherapy (n � 18), the two subjects receiving chemotherapy had a Survival Functions poorer outcome, although it was nonsignificant (p � 0.69). 1.0 When comparing estimated overall survival in subjects who received radiation (234.1 months) against those who did not (193.9 months), subjects who received radiation had better 0.8 survival, but the difference was not significant (p � 0.89). Among banked DNAs, there were 27 NF1 cases who 0.6 developed MPNSTs and/or had a positive family history of MPNSTs. As shown in Table 2, germline NF1 mutations among these 27 families were distributed as follows: non- 0.4 sense (9), missense (4), frameshift (5), splicing (5), deletion spanning most of the gene (1), and whole-gene deletion (4). 0.2 4. Discussion 0.0 ,e purpose of this study was to evaluate clinical prognostic .00 100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00 factors and genomic biomarkers in patients with MPNSTs Follow-up (months) treated at our institution. As an academic tertiary-care in- stitution, our institution is a referral center for cancer pa- S100B Data tients, including those with MPNSTs, from throughout the undetermined undetermined-censored yes yes-censored US as well as internationally. Most similar studies have no no-censored reported less than a 50% five-year MPNST survival rate [18–30]. Our cohort had a mean follow-up time of 11.4 years Figure 2: Kaplan–Meier survival curve based on MPNST S100 B and a 70% five-year survival rate, the latter of which is status. S100B-negative MPNSTs (green line, n � 4) were associated superior to any previously reported studies (range 38.3–62.5 with a significantly lower survival than S100B-positive tumors (red line, n � 9) (p< 0.003). years) [18, 19, 22–30]. Cum Survival Cum Survival 4 Sarcoma Table 2: MPNST-related NF1 germline mutations. respect to survival. Similar studies with larger cohorts found individual variables associated with survival, such as tumor Mutation Effect Exon size [18, 19, 22, 29], margin status [18, 24–28], NF1 diag- c.499delTGTT Frameshift 5 nostic status [19, 22, 26, 29, 30], and tumor grade c.958 G> Cp.Ala320Pro Missense 9 [19, 21, 22, 28]. c.1039 C> Tp.Gln347X Nonsense 9 Our study had a number of limitations, the foremost c.1782delAG Frameshift 16 being sample size and another being lack of NF1 status in c.2325 G>A Splice error 19 earlier cases. Although a larger sample size might aid in c.2352 G> Ap.Trp784X Nonsense 20 c.2446 C> Tp.Arg816X Nonsense 21 identifying additional significant prognostic factors, it is c.2534insG Frameshift 21 important to report individual institution experiences be- c.2540 T> Cp.Leu847Pro Missense 21 cause of the lack of evidence-based established therapeutic c.2991-1G>A Splice error 23 regimens for MPNST. Information from institutions with c.3113+1G>C Splice error 23 better outcomes may be very useful to other groups. Toward c.3456_3457insA Frameshift 26 this goal, we excluded patients who had received prior C. 3683delC Frameshift 27 MPNST treatment at outside institutions. Although this c.3826 C> Tp.Arg1276X Nonsense 28 allowed evaluation of survival outcomes based solely on care c.4255 A> Tp.Lys1419X Nonsense 32 at our institution, a more varied subject group might have c.4435 A>G Splice error 34 been more representative of the overall US MPNST patient c.4868 A> Tp.Asn1623Val Missense 37 c.5242 C> Tp.Arg1748X Nonsense 38 population experience. c.5914 C> Tp.Gln1981X Nonsense 40 c.6148 C> Tp.Gln2050X Nonsense 42 5. Conclusions c.6302 C> Gp.,r2101Arg Missense 42 c.7285 C> Tp.Arg2429X Nonsense 50 Given the rarity and lack of clinical trial data for MPNSTs, Whole-gene deletion (n � 4) Null All treatment parameters and survival data from multiple in- Large intragenic gene deletion (n � 1) Likely null 2–50 stitutions are needed to move toward improved treatment n � 27. NCBI RefSeq: NM_0000267. and prognosis. It is critical that patients with rare tumors such as MPNSTs be referred to institutions experienced with Consistent with previous reports, we noted that subjects such cancers. Our institutional experience with MPNST with S100B-positive tumors had significantly better out- cases treated in the Orthopedics oncology service, with comes than those with S100B-negative tumors [12]. S100 B is treatment favoring surgical resection and adjuvant radiation, a mature Schwann-cell protein, and loss of immunostaining showed an outstanding five-year survival of 70%. ,is work is consistent with poorer cell differentiation. Further in- also highlighted the potential use of S100 B immunostaining vestigation is needed to evaluate the use of this phenotype to in prognosis. In addition, our study added to the evidence stratify patient risk, along with immunostaining of other that whole-gene germline NF1 deletions are associated with markers in MPNSTs that are of recent interest such as an increased risk of MPNST. polycomb repressor complex 2 epigenetic mark H3K27me3 [31] and HMGA2 [32]. Data Availability ,e frequency of whole-gene deletions (14.8%) in the 27 germline NF1 mutations associated with MPNSTs was ,is study utilized data derived from patient records at our higher in our population than the 4–5% rate of such dele- institution; hence, the data are not available for public re- tions in NF1 patients in general [33]. ,is frequency is even lease. All pertinent HIPAA-compliant data are published in greater when including samples with a deletion of most of the accompanying tables and figures. the gene, extending beyond the 3′ end for an unknown distance. Our result is consistent with previous reports Conflicts of Interest suggesting that individuals with such deletions are at a greater risk for MPNSTs [13, 34, 35]. However, this elevated ,e authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest risk could be related to the increased plexiform neurofi- with regard to this study. broma burden of many such patients [33]. Although a significant difference in survival was not found based on presence of an NF1 diagnosis, patients with Acknowledgments NF1 trended toward a poorer outcome, particularly males: one was still alive at the last follow-up at 314.8 months after ,e authors thank the University of Florida College of metastasis, but three (including one with metastatic disease) Medicine’s Medical Student Research Program for DKK’s had survival under five years (52.43 months after metastasis, support while performing this work. ,e mutation analysis 13.74 months after diagnosis, and 17.23 months after di- work was supported through Neurofibromatosis ,era- agnosis, respectively). ,e two NF1 female subjects are both peutic Acceleration Program (NTAP) funding to MRW. ,e still alive (108.78 months after metastasis and 256.61 months authors also thank Dr. Hua Li for technical assistance; her after diagnosis). ,is study was underpowered to detect contribution and that of MRW were in part also supported relationships between race, gender, and other factors with by a DOD grant to MRW (Award #W81XWH-20-1-0355). Sarcoma 5 [17] H. Li, L.-J. Chang, D. R. Neubauer, D. F. Muir, and References M. R. Wallace, “Immortalization of human normal and NF1 [1] First Drug Approved for NF, “Children’s tumor foundation,” neurofibroma Schwann cells,” Laboratory Investigation, 2018, https://www.ctf.org/first-drug-approved-for-nf. vol. 96, no. 10, pp. 1105–1115, 2016. [2] D. H. Gutmann, R. E. Ferner, and R. H. Listernick, “Neu- [18] C. Zou, K. D. Smith, J. Liu et al., “Clinical, pathological, and rofibromatosis type 1,” Nature Reviews Disease Primers, vol. 3, molecular variables predictive of malignant peripheral nerve Article ID 17004, 2017. sheath tumor outcome,” Annals of Surgery, vol. 249, no. 6, [3] J. E. Bates, C. R. Peterson, S. Dhakal, E. J. Giampoli, and pp. 1014–1022, 2009. L. S. Constine, “Malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors [19] D. E. Porter, V. Prasad, and L. Foster, “Survival in malignant (MPNST): a SEER analysis of incidence across the age peripheral nerve sheath tumours: a comparison between spectrum and therapeutic interventions in the pediatric sporadic and neurofibromatosis type 1-associated tumours,” population,” Pediatric Blood and Cancer, vol. 61, no. 11, Sarcoma, vol. 2009, Article ID 756395, 5 pages, 2009. pp. 1955–1960, 2014. [20] M. Anghileri, R. Miceli, M. Fiore et al., “Malignant peripheral [4] B. Luzar and G. Falconieri, “Cutaneous malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors,” Cancer, vol. 107, no. 5, pp. 1065–1074, nerve sheath tumor,” Surgical Pathology Clinics, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 337–343, 2017. [21] S. Ingham, S. M. Huson, A. Moran, J. Wylie, M. Leahy, and [5] E. Uusitalo, J. Leppavirta, A. Koffert et al., “Incidence and D. G. R. Evans, “Malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumours mortality of neurofibromatosis: a total population study in in NF1: improved survival in women and in recent years,” Finland,” Journal of Investigative Dermatology, vol. 135, no. 3, European Journal of Cancer, vol. 47, no. 18, pp. 2723–2728, pp. 904–906, 2015. [6] J. F. Longo, S. N. Brosius, L. Black et al., “ErbB4 promotes [22] C.-C. H. Stucky, K. N. Johnson, R. J. Gray et al., “Malignant malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor pathogenesis via peripheral nerve sheath tumors (MPNST): the Mayo Clinic Ras-independent mechanisms,” Cell Communication and experience,” Annals of Surgical Oncology, vol. 19, no. 3, Signaling: CCS, vol. 17, p. 74, Article ID 74, 2019. pp. 878–885, 2012. [7] D. Bradford and A. Kim, “Current treatment options for [23] O. Goertz, S. Langer, D. Uthoff et al., “Diagnosis, treatment malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors,” Current and survival of 65 patients with malignant peripheral nerve Treatment Options in Oncology, vol. 16, p. 328, Article ID 12, sheath tumors,” Anticancer Research, vol. 34, no. 2, 2015. pp. 777–783, 2014. [8] Z. C. Liao, C. Zhang, and X. Y. Liu, “Targeted therapy for [24] J. Kahn, A. Gillespie, M. Tsokos et al., “Radiation therapy in malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor: translational re- management of sporadic and neurofibromatosis type 1-as- search and clinical application,” Zhonghua Zhongliu Zazhi, sociated malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors,” Frontiers vol. 41, no. 9, pp. 648–653, 2019. in Oncology, vol. 4, p. 324, Article ID 324, 2014. [9] L. M. Kayes, W. Burke, and V. M. Riccardi, “Deletions [25] T. Valentin, A. Le Cesne, I. Ray-Coquard et al., “Management spanning the neurofibromatosis 1 gene: identification and and prognosis of malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors: phenotype of five patients,” 6e American Journal of Human the experience of the French Sarcoma Group (GSF-GETO),” Genetics, vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 424–436, 1994. European Journal of Cancer, vol. 56, pp. 77–84, 2016. [10] M. H. Cnossen, M. N. Van Der Est, M. H. Breuning et al., [26] S. Le Guellec, A.-V. Decouvelaere, T. Filleron et al., “Ma- “Deletions spanning the neurofibromatosis type 1 gene: im- lignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor is a challenging di- plications for genotype-phenotype correlations in neurofi- agnosis,” 6e American Journal of Surgical Pathology, vol. 40, bromatosis type 1?” Human Mutation, vol. 9, no. 5, no. 7, pp. 896–908, 2016. pp. 458–464, 1997. [27] K. L. Watson, G. A. Al Sannaa, C. M. Kivlin et al., “Patterns of [11] A. S. Rohl, E. Kahen, S. J. Yoder, J. K. Teer, and D. R. Reed, recurrence and survival in sporadic, neurofibromatosis type 1- “,e genomic landscape of malignant peripheral nerve sheath associated, and radiation-associated malignant peripheral tumors: diverse drivers of Ras pathway activation,” Scientific nerve sheath tumors,” Journal of Neurosurgery, vol. 126, no. 1, Reports, vol. 7, Article ID 14992, 2017. pp. 319–329, 2017. [12] E. Martin, I. Asem, D. J. Grunhagen, J. V. M. G. Bovee, and [28] I. K. Hwang, S. M. Hahn, H. S. Kim et al., “Outcomes of C. Verhoef, “Prognostic significance of immunohistochemical treatment for malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors: biomarkers and genetic alterations in malignant peripheral different clinical features associated with neurofibromatosis nerve sheath tumors: a systematic review,” Frontiers in On- type 1,” Cancer Research and Treatment, vol. 49, no. 3, cology, vol. 10, Article ID 594069, 2020. pp. 717–726, 2017. [13] T. De Raedt, H. Brems, P. Wolkenstein et al., “Elevated risk for [29] M. Carli, A. Ferrari, A. Mattke et al., “Pediatric malignant MPNST in NF1 microdeletion patients,” 6e American peripheral nerve sheath tumor: the Italian and German soft Journal of Human Genetics, vol. 72, no. 5, pp. 1288–1292, tissue sarcoma cooperative group,” Journal of Clinical On- 2003. cology, vol. 23, no. 33, pp. 8422–8430, 2005. [14] G. Spurlock, S. Griffiths, J. Uff, and M. Upadhyaya, “Somatic [30] E. Martin, J. H. Coert, U. E. Flucke et al., “A nationwide cohort study on treatment and survival in patients with malignant alterations of the NF1 gene in an NF1 individual with multiple benign tumours (internal and external) and malignant tu- peripheral nerve sheath tumours,” European Journal of mour types,” Familial Cancer, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 463–471, 2007. Cancer, vol. 124, pp. 77–87, 2020. [15] S. L. Carroll, “,e challenge of cancer genomics in rare [31] J. S. Nix, M. C. Haffner, S. Ahsan et al., “Malignant peripheral nervous system neoplasms,” American Journal Of Pathology, nerve sheath tumors show decreased global DNA methyla- vol. 186, no. 3, pp. 464–477, 2016. tion,” Journal of Neuropathology & Experimental Neurology, [16] C. R. Abernathy, S. A. Rasmussen, H. J. Stalker et al., “NF1 vol. 77, no. 10, pp. 958–963, 2018. mutation analysis using a combined heteroduplex/SSCP ap- [32] K. Yang, W. Guo, T. Ren et al., “Knockdown of HMGA2 proach,” Human Mutation, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 548–554, 1997. regulates the level of autophagy via interactions between MSI2 6 Sarcoma and Beclin1 to inhibit NF1-associated malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumour growth,” Journal of Experimental & Clinical Cancer Research: Climate Research, vol. 38, no. 1, p. 185, 2019. [33] H. Kehrer-Sawatzki, V.-F. Mautner, and D. N. Cooper, “Emerging genotype-phenotype relationships in patients with large NF1 deletions,” Human Genetics, vol. 136, no. 4, pp. 349–376, 2017. [34] L. Kluwe, R. E. Friedrich, M. Peiper, J. Friedman, and V. F. Mautner, “Constitutional NF1 mutations in neurofi- bromatosis 1 patients with malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors,” Human Mutation, vol. 22, no. 5, p. 420, 2003. [35] I. Bottillo, T. Ahlquist, H. Brekke et al., “Germline and somaticNF1mutations in sporadic and NF1-associated ma- lignant peripheral nerve sheath tumours,” 6e Journal of Pathology, vol. 217, no. 5, pp. 693–701, 2009.

Journal

SarcomaHindawi Publishing Corporation

Published: Oct 4, 2021

References