Epithelioid fibrous histiocytoma (EFH) is a rare cutaneous neoplasm, which is characterized by the presence of rearrangements involving the ALK gene. Although EFH was long considered a variant of fibrous histiocytoma, the identification of its unique genetic signature confirmed that it represents a distinct entity. The aim of the present study was to examine a cohort of ALK‐immunoreactive EFH cases to further characterize gene fusion partners. Next generation sequencing detected ALK fusions in 11 EFH cases identified in the pathology archives of two different institutions. The most common fusion partner was DCTN1 (N = 4) followed by CLTC (N = 2) and VCL (N = 2), while the remaining cases harbored fusions involving SPECC1L, PPFIBP1, and PRKAR1A. In one case no fusion was detected by NGS and FISH despite suitable sample quality. Notably, IHC demonstrated positive ALK expression and the level of aligned ALK reads was comparable to the fusion‐positive cases. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report of CLTC as a fusion partner in EFH. The two CLTC rearranged cases in our cohort also represent the first two EFH cases in the literature that involve exon 19 of ALK, instead of exon 20. These findings underscore the remarkable plasticity of ALK as an oncogenic driver and further expand the list of its potential fusion partners in EFH. Lastly this is also the first report of ALK‐immunoreactive EFH with no underlying fusion suggesting a fusion independent transcription mechanism as seen in other tumors.

Introduction: Molecular analysis plays a growing role in the diagnosis of mesenchymal neoplasms. The aim of this study was to retrospectively apply broad, multiplex molecular assays (a solid tumor targeted next-generation sequencing [NGS]) assay and single nucleotide polymorphism [SNP] microarray) to selected tumors, exploring the current utility and limitations. Methods: We searched our database (2010-2020) for diagnostically challenging mesenchymal neoplasms. After histologic review of available slides, tissue blocks were selected for NGS, SNP microarray, or both. DNA and RNA were extracted using the AllPrep DNA/RNA FFPE Kit Protocol on the QIAcube instrument. The NGS platform used was the TruSight Tumor 170 (TST-170). For SNP array, copy number variant (CNV) analysis was performed using the OncoScanTM CNV Plus Assay. Results: DNA/RNA was successfully extracted from 50% of tumors ( n = 10/20). Specimens not successfully extracted included 6 core biopsies, 3 incisional biopsies, and 1 resection; 4 were decalcified (3 hydrochloric acid, 1 ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid). Higher tumor proportion and number of tumor cells were parameters positively associated with sufficient DNA/RNA extraction whereas necrosis and decalcification were negatively associated with sufficient extraction. Molecular testing helped reach a definitive diagnosis in 50% of tumors ( n = 5/10). Conclusions: Although the overall utility of this approach is limited, these molecular panels can be helpful in detecting a specific “driver” alteration.