2015
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-14-3049
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Whole Exome Sequencing Reveals the Order of Genetic Changes during Malignant Transformation and Metastasis in a Single Patient with NF1-plexiform Neurofibroma

Abstract: Purpose Malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors (MPNSTs) occur at increased frequency in individuals with neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1), where they likely arise from benign plexiform neurofibroma precursors. While previous studies have employed a variety of discovery approaches to discover genes associated with MPNST pathogenesis, it is currently unclear what molecular events are associated with the evolution of MPNST from plexiform neurofibroma. Experimental Design Whole exome sequencing was performed on … Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

4
34
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
2
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 45 publications
(38 citation statements)
references
References 59 publications
4
34
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The analysis revealed NF1 point mutations in different PNFs (1PNF, 4PNF, 4PNF2, 6PNF) as the cause of somatic NF1 inactivation (Figure A). The analysis of the somatic mutations affecting the NF1 gene in the different parts analyzed from each tumor (regardless of mutation type/mechanism) revealed invariably that all parts from the same PNF or ANF shared the same somatic NF1 mutation (Figure A), consistent with recent findings analyzing three parts of a single PNF (Hirbe et al., ). This result strongly indicated the clonal origin of the whole tumor mass studied in all cases, although not all parts contained the same percentage of cells bearing the NF1 somatic mutation (Table ).…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 88%
“…The analysis revealed NF1 point mutations in different PNFs (1PNF, 4PNF, 4PNF2, 6PNF) as the cause of somatic NF1 inactivation (Figure A). The analysis of the somatic mutations affecting the NF1 gene in the different parts analyzed from each tumor (regardless of mutation type/mechanism) revealed invariably that all parts from the same PNF or ANF shared the same somatic NF1 mutation (Figure A), consistent with recent findings analyzing three parts of a single PNF (Hirbe et al., ). This result strongly indicated the clonal origin of the whole tumor mass studied in all cases, although not all parts contained the same percentage of cells bearing the NF1 somatic mutation (Table ).…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 88%
“…In our analysis, we identify in the pre-treatment specimen hemizygous microdeletions in the NF1 and TP53 loci, with concomitantly observed amplifications of MET, HGF, and EGFR. It is not surprising that a TP53 variant was present in the pre-treatment MPNST given the prevalence of P53 mutations in clinical samples (47), and the known driver effects of P53 in the context of As discussed previously, we observed a heterogeneous treatment response to capmatinib in the NF1-P53 and NF1 tumor groups. One explanation for this partial response is that MPNSTs maintain a fundamental plasticity for reprogramming of RAS effector kinase signaling in the setting of MET inhibition similar to what is observed in breast, lung, and gastric cancers (62)(63)(64)(65)(66).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 59%
“…Therefore, in the past, many efforts have been undertaken to identify additional molecular markers that could differentiate between these tumors. (17;18) For example, expression profiling in matched malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors and neurofibroma samples did identify more than 500 kinase genes that are differentially expressed between both entities, with mitotic regulators BUB1B , PBK and NEK2 being overexpressed in malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors. (19) However, the patterns of these changes turned out to be complex and heterogeneous, without a single unifying alteration that could be used as a diagnostic marker.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%