Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Comparison of Molecular Testing Methodologies for CIC-Rearranged Sarcomas
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Comparison of Molecular Testing Methodologies for CIC-Rearranged Sarcomas
Do you wish to request the book?
Comparison of Molecular Testing Methodologies for CIC-Rearranged Sarcomas
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Comparison of Molecular Testing Methodologies for CIC-Rearranged Sarcomas
2025
Overview
Molecular detection of a capicua transcriptional repressor (CIC) rearrangement is critical for diagnosing CIC-rearranged sarcoma (CIC-RS) but is analytically challenging.
To compare the technical performance of fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), whole-transcriptome sequencing (RNA-seq), and DNA methylation profiling for CIC-rearrangement detection in a large, mainly pediatric cohort.
The study cohort consisted of 44 distinct patient tumors that were positive, equivocal, or suggestive for CIC rearrangement, including 18 central nervous system and 26 extra-central nervous system solid tumors. Forty tumors underwent FISH to detect CIC rearrangement, 31 underwent transcriptome sequencing, and 34 underwent methylation array analysis. Results for tumors tested by multiple testing modalities were compared.
Fusions were detected in 27 cases: CIC::double homeobox 4 (DUX4) (n = 15), CIC::NUT midline carcinoma family member 1 (NUTM1) (n = 4), CIC::leucine twenty homeobox (LEUTX) (n = 3), CIC::NUT family member 2B (NUTM2B) (n = 1), ataxin 1 (ATXN1)::NUTM1 (n = 1), ATXN1::NUT family member 2A/B (NUTM2A/B) (n = 1), CIC::DUX4 proximity effect (n = 1), and dedicator of cytokinesis 1 (DOCK1)::DUX4 (n = 1). Twenty-five tumors were tested by all 3 testing modalities. Apparent false-negative rates were 20% (3 of 15) for CIC FISH, 14% (2 of 14) for transcriptome sequencing, and 14% (2 of 14) for methylation array analysis. Both false-negative methylation array results had CIC::LEUTX fusion.
Awareness of molecular testing pitfalls in the appropriate detection of CIC rearrangement is critical. Any CIC FISH result may need to be further confirmed, either with unequivocal immunohistochemical support or by another molecular method. A positive RNA-seq or methylation array analysis result may be sufficient evidence for a diagnosis of CIC-RS in the appropriate histologic context. A negative or inconclusive/unclassified RNA-seq or methylation array analysis result in a tumor with high initial suspicion for CIC-RS likely requires careful reevaluation.
Publisher
College of American Pathologists
Subject
/ Adult
/ Biomarkers, Tumor - genetics
/ Child
/ DNA
/ Female
/ Humans
/ In Situ Hybridization, Fluorescence - methods
/ Kinases
/ Male
/ Methods
/ Repressor Proteins - genetics
/ RNA
/ Sarcoma
/ Tumors
