J Cancer Metastasis TreatJournal of Cancer Metastasis and Treatment2454-2857OAE Publishing Inc.10.20517/2394-4722.2020.119ReviewGenetic characteristics and molecular diagnostics of bone tumorsSusterDavid1SusterSaul21Department of Pathology, Rutgers University, New Jersey Medical School, Newark, NJ 07103, USA.2Department of Pathology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI 53226, USA.Correspondence Address: Dr. Saul Suster, Department of Pathology, Medical College of Wisconsin 9200 W. Wisconsin Ave. Milwaukee, WI 53226, USA. E-mail: ssuster@mcw.edu
Received: 29 Oct 2020 | First Decision: 26 Nov 2020 | Revised: 23 Dec 2020 | Accepted: 31 Dec 2020 | Published: 3 Feb 2021
Academic Editor: Ian Judson | Copy Editor: Monica Wang | Production Editor: Jing Yu
The diagnosis of primary tumors of bone relies heavily on clinicopathological and radiological correlation and is often best performed in a multidisciplinary setting. Bone tumors comprise a heterogenous category of human lesions ranging from benign to malignant neoplasms. These tumors affect a wide age range and can become problematic for diagnosis when less common entities are encountered. Traditionally the pathological diagnosis of many bone tumors has been based primarily on the evaluation of hematoxylin and eosin-stained glass slides, sometimes combined with ancillary diagnostic techniques such as immunohistochemistry, conventional cytogenetics, fluorescence in situ hybridization, and polymerase chain reaction-based assays. More recently, the advent of massively parallel sequencing-based techniques has opened new avenues for diagnostic testing in bone tumors; however, these new testing modalities are sensitive to traditional decalcification procedures that are commonly used in the routine processing of bony specimens. Herein we provide a focused review concentrating on the molecular genetic features of bone tumors with specific, recurrent genetic alterations that make them appealing targets for directed ancillary testing by conventional or molecular techniques. In addition, specimen handling with regards to decalcification procedures are discussed and the different types of testing modalities available are reviewed.
Primary tumors of bone comprise a heterogeneous group of benign and malignant tumors that affect patients of a wide age range. While benign bone tumors are relatively common, malignant bone tumors are exceedingly rare, accounting for less than 1%-2% of all neoplastic disease[1-3]. While some of the more common bone lesions, such as osteochondroma, pose little problem for diagnosis, the less commonly occurring benign and malignant lesions can often lead to diagnostic difficulties. The histopathologic diagnosis of bone tumors is fraught with difficulty due to the histomorphologic overlap between many different types of tumors, including overlap between reactive, benign, and malignant lesions[4-5]. In addition, the diagnosis of bone lesions is heavily reliant on correlation with imaging characteristics to be able to localize lesions to specific locations within different bones and to sometimes assist in staging[6-8]. Thus, the diagnosis and treatment of patients with primary bone tumors is best accomplished with a multidisciplinary approach involving the coordination of surgeons, radiologists, pathologists, and oncologists to produce optimal patient care[9-10].
Given the inherent diagnostic difficulties associated with primary bone tumors, ancillary testing modalities that may assist in diagnosis are beneficial to patient care. Precision medicine for bone cancer has lagged behind soft tissue, epithelial, and hematologic neoplasms in part due to the special processing procedures required for bony tissues[11]. Traditionally, diagnosis has relied on histopathological assessment of tumor tissue combined with clinical and radiological correlation. This has been supplemented with cytogenetic analysis including karyotype analysis and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH)[12-16]. Immunohistochemical analysis has played little role in the diagnosis of bone tumors, although recent molecular advances have provided pathologists with specific targets amenable to antibody interrogation in some tumors such as giant cell tumor of bone and chondroblastoma[17]. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR)[18-20] and, more recently, massively parallel next generation sequencing (NGS) based assays have provided additional tools for assessing molecular alterations in bone tumors[21-23]. However, it is worth noting that many of these ancillary testing modalities are exquisitely sensitive to conventional processing techniques, particularly decalcification, and care must be taken when processing bony lesions with consideration for downstream testing that may take place after the histopathological examination. This review aims to discuss the molecular genetic landscape of many of the primary bone tumors, specimen handling, and the ancillary testing available for diagnosis.
Specimen handling
Processing and handling are critical components for the proper diagnosis of bony surgical pathology specimens. When sufficient material is available, receiving fresh tissue is preferred as it allows for a portion of the tissue to be preserved (often fresh in saline or snap frozen) for subsequent cytogenetic, molecular, and microbiological studies[24]. Priority however should be given to tissue that will be used for morphological analysis, as that remains the cornerstone of histopathologic diagnosis of bone lesions. Routine fixation using 10% formalin and paraffin embedding is acceptable for this purpose and generally does not interfere significantly with testing of antigen expression or genomic material[25,26]. It is also worth mentioning that numerous other pre-analytical variables can have large effects on nucleic acid retrieval including specimen collection techniques, storage practices, temperature, duration of processing, and dehydration protocols amongst others. However, an in-depth discussion of pre-analytical variables is beyond the scope of this review which will focus on decalcification as it pertains specifically to bone specimens. Bone specimens often require additional preparation in the form of decalcification to allow for proper processing of the bone sections and creation of glass slides that can then be reviewed microscopically; however, decalcification is known to have detrimental effects on subsequent molecular testing[27,28]. Decalcification is most often accomplished using strong (e.g., hydrochloric acid or nitric acid) or weak (e.g., acetic acid or formic acid) inorganic acidic solutions to aid in the demineralization of bony specimens [Table 1]. Although generally adequate for preserving histomorphology, decalcification with acidic solutions may lead to the degradation of genomic material and cause interference when molecular testing is performed[29,30]. Acid decalcification with formic acid (a weak acid) has been reported to preserve genomic material for sequencing analysis although it can cause severe damage to DNA and RNA when longer decalcification times are used[31]. Picric acid may also not be optimal for nucleic acid retrieval[32]. Alternative methods or modifications to standard decalcification that exist include the use of ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), microwave, ultrasonography, and other types of acid. Acids or EDTA may be used in bone decalcification and combined with microwave or ultrasonography to reduce the time needed to decalcify, and EDTA decalcification alone appears to provide some measure of genomic material preservation compared to stronger acid solutions[33-37]. Decalcification times vary for both acidic solutions and EDTA and can be modified with additional factors such as temperature or mechanical agitation[38]. When handling bone specimens it is important to be familiar with the tissue processing procedures employed by the laboratory so that consideration can be given to the types of subsequent testing performed.
Common methods of bone decalcification
Agent
Speed
Mechanism of Action
Effect on Histomorphology and Antigen Expression
Effect on Genomic Material (DNA/RNA)
Strong Acids (Hydrochloric, Nitric, etc.)
Rapid decalcification (minutes to hours)
Calcium dissolution
Preserved with short decalcifications
Cause degradation of genomic material
Weak Acids (Acetic, Formic, Picric, etc.)
Slow decalcification (2-3 days)
Calcium dissolution
Preserved
May cause less degradation of genomic material although long decalcification times can still cause damage and formic acid may cause severe damage
EDTA
Slow decalcification (1-2 days)
Calcium chelation
Preserved
Generally better at preserving genomic material, although molecular tests may still fail
Microwave/Ultrasonography/Electricity^
Generally, increase rate of decalcification
Heat/bone cavitation/electrolytic removal of ions
Can cause distortion of histomorphology
Can cause degradation of genomic material
^These methods are not commonly used in most pathology laboratories. They also are usually used in combination with acid dissolution or chelating agents and may increase damage to tissue and genomic material. EDTA: ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid; DNA: deoxyribose nucleic acid; RNA: ribonucleic acid
Diagnostic testing modalties
Karyotype, FISH, and chromosomal microarrays (CMA) such as array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH)/single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) arrays have all traditionally constituted the backbone of molecular diagnostics in bone and soft tissue tumors. In more recent decades, PCR based assays, first-generation sequencing technologies and the development of massively parallel targeted sequencing have provided new options for molecular testing of bone tumors[22,39-41]. In general, there are certain advantages and disadvantages to each type of testing modality with some special considerations with regards to tissue processing. Karyotype and CMA, while less commonly used these days for bone tumors, require fresh tissue or perform better with fresh tissue and may still provide some valuable information when used. FISH, PCR, and NGS can be performed on formalin fixed paraffin embedded tissue; however, they suffer from degradation of genomic material during decalcification procedures particularly when strong acids are used.
The type of testing offered by different laboratories also varies widely making it important for pathologists and clinicians to understand the capabilities of each different type of assay and the information being returned. For example, FISH may be used to identify specific translocations or amplification of certain genes in a case where a particular diagnosis is suspected and can be done at a relatively low price with a rapid turnaround time; however, it is less sensitive than PCR or NGS and may lead to false negative results, particularly in bone tumors where neoplastic cells are present in the background of numerous benign cells[42]. PCR and NGS based sequencing assays may be better diagnostic options for tumors where there is a broad differential such as a primary malignant small round blue cell tumor of bone, however these assays are exquisitely sensitive to decalcification and require proper triaging of pre-analytical variables such as tissue fixation and decalcification. In addition, NGS is expensive compared to older techniques and may not be available outside of larger academic institutions or referral centers. Table 2 provides a summary of some of the more common testing modalities that are available for diagnostic testing of bone tumors.
Cytogenetic and molecular diagnostic tests available for bone tumors
Test
Use
Effects of Processing
Advantages
Limitations
FISH
Useful for any bone tumor displaying amplification or a specific chromosomal rearrangement
FFPE material works well for FISH, decalcification can cause interference with FISH probes if genomic material is sufficiently degraded
-Available in most academic centers
-Can be performed on FFPE samples
-Rapid turnaround time (48-72 h)
-Technically difficult to interpret signals and requires trained personnel
-Requires a fluorescence microscope and imaging capability
-Intermediate resolution: 200 kb
-Misses CN-LOH
-Provides no mutational information
-May provide false negatives on hypocellular tumor material
PCR
PCR can provide rapid diagnosis of point mutations and gene fusions in bone tumors, although it is being replaced by other testing methods
Very sensitive to degradation of DNA and RNA due to decalcification procedures, some literature exists showing sequencing works with weak acid or EDTA decalcification however assays may still fail
-Easy assay to set up and perform
-Available at most academic centers
-Fast turnaround time (2-5 days)
-Works well on FFPE samples
-Highly sensitive
-Can only interrogate specific suspected alterations†
-Primers must be designed to cover specific areas of interest
-RT-PCR assays require RNA which can be difficult to work with and degrade easily
Sequencing
Can be used to analyze various types of bone tumors depending on type of sequencing panel used, including identifying point mutations, rearrangements, and copy number alterations
Very sensitive to degradation of DNA and RNA due to decalcification procedures, some literature exists showing sequencing works with weak acid or EDTA decalcification however assays may still fail
-NGS can interrogate tumors for multiple different genetic abnormalities depending on the panel used
-Can easily be performed on FFPE samples (without decalcification)
-High resolution: down to single digit base pairs
-Highly sensitive
-Sanger sequencing has a lower limit of detection as compared to NGS; however it is useful for targeted mutational testing and for confirmation of molecular alterations identified by other sequencing methods
-Longest turnaround time (1-4 weeks)
-Analysis requires complex bioinformatics pipelines and trained personnel to interpret sequencing data
-Equipment and reagents currently expensive
-Not available everywhere
Karyotype
Typically, no longer used in the routine diagnosis of primary bone tumors
Requires fresh tissue; karyotype cannot be performed on tissue that has undergone standard fixation and decalcification procedures
-Available in most academic centers
-Reasonable turnaround time (5-10 days)
-May serve as a whole genome screen for structural and numerical alterations and reveal unexpected information
-Requires fresh tissue
-Technically demanding assay to set up and perform
-Dependent on culture and growth of malignant cells
-Low resolution: ~10mb
-Provides no information on mutations
Array
Not commonly used for the diagnosis of primary bone tumors, although array can be used to identify amplification events in certain tumors or lesions with complex genetics and numerous copy number variations
Degradation of genomic material from decalcification interferes with proper analysis of array data
-Array available at most academic centers
-SNP array can identify CN-LOH
-Can identify specific areas of gains and losses
-Fast turnaround time (5-7 days)
-Intermediate resolution: 10-100 kb
-Cannot detect balanced rearrangements
-Provides no information on mutations
-Fresh tissue is preferable, analysis of degraded (such as FFPE) samples is difficult
†Some PCR-based assays are capable of identifying unknown translocations, such as rapid amplification of cDNA ends (RACE) or long distance inverse PCR (LDI-PCR), however these assays are technically more complex than conventional PCR or quantitative PCR and are not available everywhere for routine clinical care. FISH: fluorescence in situ hybridization; SNP: single nucleotide polymorphism; RT-PCR: reverence transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction; PCR: polymerase chain reaction, NGS: next generation sequencing; Mb: mega base pair; Kb: kilo base pair; bp: base pair; CN-LOH: copy neutral loss of heterozygosity; FFPE: formalin fixed paraffin embedded; EDTA: ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid; DNA: deoxyribose nucleic acid; RNA: ribonucleic acid
General molecular genetic landscape of bone neoplasia
Genetically bone tumors may be characterized in a similar fashion to soft tissue neoplasms, divided into lesions with simple genetics and lesions with complex genetics. These categories do not necessarily line up with the histological grade or clinical behavior of individual tumors; tumors with complex genetics are almost uniformly aggressive, although some tumors with simple genetics also behave in an aggressive fashion, and vice versa. Tumors that fall into the simple genetics category tend to have simple karyotypes and can generally be characterized by specific, recurrent molecular alterations that make them attractive targets for cytogenetic or molecular analysis. These alterations most commonly take the form of point mutations or chromosomal level abnormalities such as amplifications or translocations with various downstream effects such as the creation of oncogenic fusion proteins. Tumors from the complex category tend to display either multistep progression in their molecular profiles (such as high-grade chondrosarcoma and dedifferentiated chondrosarcoma) or are characterized by complex karyotypes with multiple molecular abnormalities present at the time of diagnosis (high-grade osteosarcoma and undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma). While the value of ancillary diagnostics is dependent on the aforementioned tissue processing protocols, when appropriate material is preserved, they can serve as a valuable tool in the diagnosis of difficult lesions that cannot be diagnosed on clinical, radiological, and histopathologic grounds alone.
Primary bone tumors represent a heterogenous group of tumors with a wide spectrum of differentiation. They include a variety of lesions from different categories including fibrogenic, osteogenic, chondrogenic, undifferentiated, and giant cell rich tumors. In addition, bone can be the site of various other tumors types including notochordal, vascular, myogenic and lipogenic tumors[3]. A summary of the molecular alterations found in primary bone tumors is provided in Tables 3 and 4[43-121]. While advances in molecular genetics have expanded our understanding of the molecular alterations present in many different types of tumors, the routine diagnosis of many primary bone tumors remains a clinicopathologic diagnosis rather than hinging on the identification of specific molecular alterations. As some of these lesions sometimes pose difficulty for diagnosis due to morphologic overlap with other lesions, they may benefit from ancillary molecular testing to identify specific alterations. In addition, a large variety of tumors that primarily occur within the soft tissues may rarely occur as primary osseous lesions. These tumors are mostly the subject of case reports or small series; however, they may cause problems for diagnosis when encountered as primaries outside of their usual site and many of them harbor specific genetic alterations that are helpful for diagnosis when encountered as a bone primary (see “Soft Tissue Tumors that Rarely Present as Primary Bone Tumors” section). Tables 3 and 4 provide a brief overview of selected lesions that exemplify the different categories of bone tumor genetics or in which molecular testing may be helpful.
Molecular genetic alterations in primary bone tumors (simple genetics)
Tumor Type
Mutations
Translocations and Other Cytogenetic Aberrations
Fusion Gene or Other Effects
Osteochondroma[43-46]
EXT1 and EXT2 loss of function mutations/LOH in sporadic and hereditary osteochondromas
N/A
Disruption of EXT1/2 complex
Enchondroma[4,47,48]
IDH1 (R132C; R132H) or IDH2 (R172S), PTHR1 mutations
Various chromosomal level abnormalities
Altered 2-hydroxyglutarate levels, associated hypermethylation and downregulated expression of several other genes associated with IDH mutations
Osteoid Osteoma[16,49-51]
N/A
FOS and FOSB rearrangements
FOS/FOSB-various partners
Osteoblastoma[16,51-55]
N/A
FOS and FOSB rearrangements
FOS/FOSB-various partners
Non-ossifying Fibroma[56]
KRAS, FGFR1, and NF1 alterations
N/A
RAS-MAPK pathway activation
Desmoplastic Fibroma[3,57-60]
Rare cases with point mutations described (CTNNB1, APC)
Molecular genetic alterations in primary bone tumors (complex genetics)
Tumor Type
Genetic Alteration
Effect
Chondromyxoid Fibroma[3,4,100]
GRM1 upregulation through promoter swapping and gene fusions with various fusion partners including TBL1XR1, COL12A1, BCLAF1, FRMD6, MYO1E, and MEF2A, often caused by complex rearrangement processes
Upregulated GRM1 expression transcripts across entire GRM1 coding sequence
High-Grade Osteosarcoma[3,101-105]
Complex karyotypes (sometimes displaying chromothripsis and kataegis) with numerous structural changes reported and multiple types of mutations across many genes (> 100) including RB1 and TP53
Loss of multiple tumor suppressor genes
High-Grade[106-107] and Dedifferentiated Chondrosarcoma[108-111]
Aneuploidy and complex karyotypes, harbor IDH1 and IDH2 mutations if primary or arising from enchondroma, additional mutations in TP53, RB1, CDKN2A/2B, TERT, SUZ12, EED, and p16
Loss of tumor suppressor function, cell cycle dysregulation, and chromatin remodeling defects
Adamantinoma[3,112-116]
Progressive complexity of cytogenetic alterations including increased copy number of chromosomes 7, 8, 12, 19, and 21, KMT2D alterations and rare gene fusions
Various downstream effects including altered chromatin remodeling
Chordoma[3,117-121]
The primary alteration in conventional chordoma is copy number gains of TBXT. In addition, chordoma displays a complex karyotype with various copy number alterations.
22q (SMARCB1) loss seen in poorly differentiated chordoma
Overexpression of brachyury secondary to copy number gain of TBXT as well as various other downstream effects including altered chromatin remodeling
Molecular genetics of selected bone tumorsGiant cell tumor of bone
Giant cell tumor of bone (GCT) is a benign primary bone tumor characterized by a mononuclear cell population of neoplastic cells with an admixed population of multinucleated osteoclast-type giant cells. These lesions fall into the simple genetics category of bone tumors. GCT represents approximately 5% of all primary bone tumors and may behave in a locally aggressive fashion[3]. Recent molecular advances have identified that nearly all of these tumors are characterized by somatic point mutations in the H3-3A (H3F3A) gene leading to a specific amino acid substitution p.Gly34Trp that is detectable with immunohistochemistry (G34W IHC). This mutation leads to epigenetic modification and abnormal function of histone protein H3[61]. In addition, studies have shown that other alterations including 20q11.1 amplification, IDH mutations (although this is disputed), and RANKL overexpression are present in GCT[62-64]. While the diagnosis of GCT is generally straight forward some cases may display morphologic overlap with other giant cell rich lesions including chondroblastoma. For this reason, immunohistochemistry or molecular testing for the H3-3A mutation may be useful in clinching the diagnosis. Achieving a correct diagnosis for these lesions is particularly useful as the tumors are amenable to targeted therapy with denosumab[64].
Chondroblastoma
Chondroblastoma is a rare benign primary bone tumor of young adulthood that displays chondrogenic differentiation and is part of the simple genetics category of lesions. It is characterized by a monotonous population of what appear to be primitive chondroblastic cells [Figure 1][4]. These tumors are driven by mutations primarily in the H3-3B (H3F3B) gene, with an extremely small percentage harboring mutations in H3-3A[4,61]. The mutations result in an amino acid change; p.Lys36Met that is detectable by immunohistochemistry (K36M IHC) [Figure 2][3,4,64]. As in GCT, this mutation interferes with histone protein H3[61]. Some cytogenetic abnormalities have been described including some rearrangements, although they do not appear to be recurrent[3]. Chondroblastoma has also been shown to harbor RANKL overexpression similar to GCT and in rare cases has shown response to denosumab therapy in refractory tumors[64]. Chondroblastoma may in some cases display morphologic overlap with both giant cell rich lesions as well as chondrogenic lesions. In some cases, prominent secondary aneurysmal bone cyst-like changes may be present[3], making the identification of the K36M mutation particularly useful.
Chondroblastoma: high power magnification of chondroblastoma shows a monotonous appearing cell population with well-defined cell borders and ample eosinophilic cytoplasm. Some admixed multinucleated giant cells are present (Hematoxylin and Eosin, 200x magnification)
K36M immunohistochemistry: immunohistochemistry for the K36M antibody shows a nuclear staining pattern within the neoplastic cells of chondroblastoma consistent with H3F3B mutation (K36M immunohistochemistry, 20x magnification)
Osteoblastoma and osteoid osteoma
Osteoblastoma and osteoid osteoma are two related lesions that are both osteoid producing primary bone tumors composed of immature woven bone spicules, prominent stromal vessels, giant cells, and prominent osteoblasts [Figure 3][3]. Until recently molecular studies consisted of only a few cytogenetic studies that did not identify any recurrent alterations. More recently recurrent rearrangements of FOS and FOSB have been identified that in many cases can be identified with immunohistochemistry for FOS [Figure 4][16,50,51]. FOS is a tightly regulated transcription factor that has been known to be involved in the pathogenesis of bone tumors; FOS and FOSB rearrangements involve multiple partners and create a mutant fusion transcript lacking the normal regulatory elements[16]. A small subgroup of non-FOS-rearranged osteoblastomas have also been identified to be characterized by loss of NF2[54]. Osteoid osteoma in general i30s readily diagnosed on clinicopathologic grounds; however, osteoblastoma can present a problem for diagnosis as it may show overlap with some locally aggressive or outright malignant lesions such as osteosarcoma. While many osteoblastomas will show FOS immunoreactivity, up to 14% of osteosarcoma samples also showed immunoreactivity in one study[51]. This potential for non-specificity for osteoblastoma immunohistochemistry means that FISH or sequencing based assays are preferable as an ancillary molecular tool if fresh tissue is available; however, a positive FOS immunohistochemistry may help support a suspected diagnosis of osteoblastoma.
Osteoblastoma: low power magnification shows a highly vascular neoplasm with small spicules of immature woven production rimmed by osteoblastic cells (Hematoxylin and Eosin, 20x magnification)
FOS immunohistochemistry: immunohistochemistry for FOS shows nuclear positivity for the majority of the neoplastic tumor cells in osteoblastoma, this serves as a surrogate for the presence of FOS rearrangements, although it is not entirely specific (FOS immunohistochemistry, 20x magnification)
Aneurysmal bone cyst
Aneurysmal bone cyst (ABC) is a benign, yet destructive, primary bone lesion composed of multiple cystic blood-filled spaces that has a characteristic radiological impression with fluid-fluid levels[3]. Cytogenetic characterization of these lesions has shown recurrent aberrations of chromosome 17p[65]. These aberrations are now known to be recurrent rearrangements involving the USP6 gene[66]. A CDH11-USP6 rearrangement was the first described, although numerous different translocation partners have now been identified with a common mechanism involving promoter swapping with upregulation of USP6[66-70]. The upregulation of USP6 leads to increased production of matrix metalloproteinases that lead to osteolysis, inflammation, and vascularization[66]. USP6 rearrangements are most easily identified using FISH break apart probes or next generation sequencing based fusion panels and are useful in the diagnosis of these lesions as there can be morphologic overlap between ABC and various benign and malignant lesions that can show secondary ABC-like areas.
Chondrosarcoma
Chondrosarcoma is defined as a malignant cartilage producing tumor and is comprised of a large family of tumors that includes multiple types such as conventional chondrosarcoma, periosteal chondrosarcoma, mesenchymal chondrosarcoma, and clear cell chondrosarcoma[3]. The most commonly encountered of these entities is conventional chondrosarcoma which can be further classified into peripheral (located in the appendicular skeleton), central (located within the axial skeleton), primary (arising in the absence of a precursor lesion), or secondary (arising from a pre-existing bone tumor, usually enchondroma or osteochondroma)[3,4]. Chondrosarcoma is graded based primarily on the degree of cytologic atypia and some other features including overall cellularity, cartilage matrix degeneration and mitotic activity. Low-grade lesions occurring in the appendicular skeleton are termed atypical cartilaginous tumors. Genetically, primary peripheral and central chondrosarcomas are characterized by somatic point mutations in the isocitrate dehydrogenase genes, IDH1 (R132C/H/G) and IDH2 (R172S) leading to altered hydroxyglutarate levels[3,4]. Secondary chondrosarcomas arising from enchondromas, a finding that often occurs as part of the genetic syndromes: Ollier disease and Maffuci syndrome, are also characterized by IDH mutations. Secondary peripheral chondrosarcomas arising in association with osteochondromas are characterized by mutations in EXT1 and EXT2, the same genes mutated in patients with multiple hereditary exostosis[4,80-82]. High-grade chondrosarcoma shows progressive molecular alterations including aneuploidy and complex karyotypes, and mutations in RB1, TP53, and COL2A1[3]. Finally, periosteal chondrosarcoma has been reported to harbor IDH gene mutations while mesenchymal chondrosarcoma shows a characteristic HEY1-NCOA2 rearrangement[3,98]. Though some genetic abnormalities have been reported in clear cell chondrosarcoma its genetic profile has not been completely elucidated[3]. Despite the presence of various molecular alterations in the different subtypes of chondrosarcoma it is worth noting that the diagnosis of conventional chondrosarcoma in general does not require ancillary molecular genetic testing and is instead established based on clinical, radiological, and histological criteria in routine clinical practice. However, associated molecular alterations may be useful in some situations, particularly in secondary lesions that may be related to germline conditions, when dealing with mesenchymal chondrosarcoma presenting as predominantly poorly differentiated small round blue cells, and in some cases separating conventional chondrosarcoma from other cartilaginous lesions when limited tissue is available for examination.
Osteosarcoma
Osteosarcoma is a malignant bone forming tumor that is the prototypical example of a primary bone sarcoma with complex genetics, but also includes some subtypes that are characterized by well-defined recurrent genetic alterations. These tumors are categorized by neoplastic osteoid production and a population of atypical osteocytes that can display a wide spectrum of cytological appearances from low-grade, bland appearing spindle cell lesions to high grade lesions with bizarre, atypical forms[3]. The molecular genetics of high-grade osteosarcoma are complex; cytogenetic and large-scale sequencing studies have identified a number of somatic mutations as well as numerous, generally non-recurrent, copy number alterations at the chromosomal level[102-104]. Somatic mutations in tumor suppressor genes and proto-oncogenes include TP53, RB1, BRCA2, BAP1, RET, CDKN2A PTEN, WRN, ATRX, and many others. Many of these genes such as TP53, RB1, and WRN are associated with hereditary cancer syndromes including Li-Fraumeni, hereditary retinoblastoma, and Werner syndrome, that predispose patients to an increased risk of osteosarcoma[102,103]. Reported mutations are numerous and number in the hundreds[102]. High-grade osteosarcoma is also characterized cytogenetically by chromothripsis (Greek origin, “thripsis” meaning shattering) and kataegis (Greek origin, “Kataegis” meaning thunderstorm) in which catastrophic chromosomal breakage occurs sometimes in combination with regional hypermutation that occurs through complex mechanisms [Figures 5 and 6][102,104].
Graphical schematic depicting chromothripsis: chromosomal shattering occurs with subsequent failure of genomic repair mechanisms resulting in inappropriate recombination of chromosomal fragments. During this process fragments of the chromosome may be lost or remain and reassembled erroneously
Representative example of chromothripsis: CMA plot of chromosome 12 demonstrating 14 alternating CNAs involving the proximal region of the short (p) and long (q) arms of chromosome 12. This pattern of alternating CNAs is suggestive of “chromothripsis”. In addition, there is a deletion of the remaining distal portion of 12p. Sample was tested using the Agilent 180k aCGH+SNP oligo array, and data analysis was performed using the Agilent CytoGenomics software v4.0 (Image courtesy of Dr. Fady M. Mikhail, MD PHD, University of Alabama at Birmingham). CMA: chromosomal microarray; CNAs: copy number abnormalities
Low-grade variants of osteosarcoma include parosteal osteosarcoma and low-grade central osteosarcoma[3]. The low-grade variants of osteosarcoma are characterized by a bland appearing spindle cell population of cells rather than the overtly malignant cells present in high-grade osteosarcoma [Figure 7]. Both of these subtypes display less complex genetics than their high-grade counterparts harboring known specific, recurrent genetic alterations in the form of supernumerary ring chromosomes containing amplified material from 12q13-15 similar to that seen in some liposarcomas [Figure 8][83-87]. In some cases, these changes have been identified in high-grade osteosarcoma as well, although it is unclear if this represents an isolated finding in a genetically complex lesion or a marker of transition from a previously low-grade lesion (dedifferentiation)[83]. Amplification of material from 12q13-15 leads to the amplification of multiple genes involved in tumorigenesis including MDM2, CDK4, and FRS2[83]. These amplifications can be detected by immunohistochemistry for MDM2 and CDK4, although testing by FISH or chromosomal microarray provides a more sensitive test[83]. These findings are quite helpful when dealing with a low-grade fibroblastic proliferation as these tumors can share morphologic overlap with other fibroblastic tumors of bone.
Parosteal osteosarcoma: high power magnification shows a bland appearing spindle cell population infiltrating around small bony fragments. Lesions such as this are difficult to distinguish from reactive processes or other fibroblastic lesions based on histomorphology alone (Hematoxylin and Eosin, 20x magnification)
MDM2 amplification by FISH: representative example of supernumerary ring chromosome formation containing amplified material from 12q13-15. Increased copy numbers of MDM2 (red probe) signals (black arrow) are seen within ringed chromosomes (Image courtesy of Dr. Christine Bryke MD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center). FISH: fluorescence in situ hybridization
Ewing Sarcoma/Primitive Neuroectodermal Tumor
Ewing sarcoma is the prototypical example a small round blue cell sarcoma that may occur as primary bone tumor. Ewing sarcoma is characterized by a recurrent, specific t(11;22)(q24;q12) that leads to the production of an oncogenic fusion protein: EWSR1-FLI1[88]. Various other fusion partners exist for EWSR1[Table 3], although many of these tumors are considered to fall within the Ewing sarcoma family and are treated in a similar fashion[89-92].
The differential of small round blue cell sarcomas within bone has expanded considerably in the past years and now includes various non-Ewing translocation associated sarcomas, mesenchymal chondrosarcoma, myoepithelial tumors, and other poorly differentiated malignancies including high-grade osteosarcoma[90]. The wide range of lesions that can share morphologic overlap makes molecular testing for EWSR1 essential in the diagnosis of these lesions. While FISH is helpful in identifying the involvement of EWSR1 in a rearrangement, more advanced molecular techniques such as PCR or NGS may be required in order to identify fusion partners and determine the exact nature of a small round blue cell sarcoma.
Soft tissue tumors that rarely present as primary bone tumors
Apart from tumors that occur commonly within bone or primarily within bone there is a large group of mesenchymal neoplasms that may also rarely occur in bone. This list includes, but is not limited to, neural tumors (e.g., malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor), adipocytic tumors (e.g., liposarcoma), histiocytic tumors (e.g., Rosai-Dorfman disease), tumors of uncertain histogenesis (e.g., synovial sarcoma), vascular tumors (e.g., epithelioid hemangioma and angiosarcoma), and some undifferentiated sarcomas [Table 5][122-183]. These lesions tend to share similar genetic profiles to their soft tissue counterparts when occurring as a bone primary and include lesions that fall into the simple and complex genetic category. Molecular diagnostic testing is indicated in many of these tumors as several of them are characterized by specific, recurrent alterations. An example of this is sclerosing epithelioid fibrosarcoma/low-grade fibromyxoid sarcoma - a bland appearing fibroblastic lesion that can share morphologic overlap with reactive changes, low-grade variants of fibroblastic osteosarcoma, desmoplastic fibroma, solitary fibrous tumor, and others [Figure 9]. These tumors are characterized by FUS rearrangements, usually partnering with CREB3L2 or CREB3L1 and rarely occur within the bone; however, may pose problems for diagnosis when encountered[131-133]. Although immunohistochemistry for MUC4 is helpful for the diagnosis, ancillary molecular testing through FISH, PCR, or sequencing can help solidify the diagnosis [Figure 10]. While some of these lesions can be diagnosed based on clinicopathologic features and immunohistochemistry, oftentimes they require expanded diagnostic testing for specific molecular alterations.
Molecular genetic alterations in soft tissue tumors that may also rarely occur as primary bone tumors (simple and complex genetics)
Tumor Type
Genetic Abnormality
Recurrent Fusion or Abnormality
Malignant Peripheral Nerve Sheath Tumor[122-125]
Various somatic alterations in CDKN2A, NF1, EED, SUZ12, SMARCB1 (epithelioid variant)
Dysregulation of polycomb repressive complex 2 (PRC2)
Supernumerary ring and giant chromosome markers with amplification of 12q13-15, including MDM2 and CDK4Pleomorphic subtype: complex genetics with various CNV
Cell cycle dysregulation, overexpression of MDM2 and CDK4
Gene alterations in CIC, KDR, PLCG1, FLT4, and
MYC overexpression seen in some cases
CIC fusions rare
Undifferentiated Pleomorphic Sarcoma[175-178]
Rare targetable fusions identified in some cases, complex karyotypes, mutations in TP53, ATRX, and RB1 and others
Various
Rosai-Dorfman Disease[75,179-182]
KRAS and MAP2K1 mutations
MAPK pathway alteration
Erdheim Chester Disease&[71,75,183]
BRAF V600E
MAPK pathway alteration
^FUS/EWSR1-NFATC2 rearrangements have recently been described in a significant proportion of simple bone cysts indicating that these rearrangements are neither specific to NFATC2 sarcomas, nor do they necessarily indicate a malignant process. &Erdheim Chester shows bone involvement in nearly 95% of cases making it common to bone; however, it also commonly displays systemic involvement and is exceedingly rare overall, thus it is classified here under rare lesions rather than primary bone tumors. t: translocation
Sclerosing epithelioid fibrosarcoma/low-grade fibromyxoid sarcoma: Scanning magnification of FUS/LGFMS showing an infiltrative, but bland appearing fibroblastic lesion showing both intramedullary and extramedullary growth (Hematoxylin and Eosin, 20x magnification)
FUS fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH): FISH for FUS in sclerosing epithelioid fibrosarcoma/low-grade fibromyxoid sarcoma using break apart FISH probes identifies a rearrangement of FUS indicated by separate signals (white arrows, 5’ green probe and 3’ red probe). Testing for rearrangements through FISH does not provide information on partner genes or chromosomes involved in rearrangements
Conclusion
Bone tumors represent a heterogenous category of benign and malignant lesions with a varied genomic landscape. Advances in molecular technology have vastly increased our knowledge of the molecular features of many of these lesions although the diagnosis of many bone tumors is still based entirely on histopathologic, clinical, and radiological features. Ancillary molecular diagnostics are increasingly becoming necessary for the diagnosis of bone tumors, facilitated by the development of new technologies in the past few decades. Knowledge of the molecular alterations as well as specimen handling considerations that may affect molecular testing is of utmost important as our base of knowledge continues to grow.
DeclarationsAuthors’ contributions
Responsible for conceptualization, image procurement, and content review: Suster S
Rresponsible for drafting the primary manuscript, image procurement, and figure creation: Suster D
Availability of data and materials
Not Applicable.
Financial support and sponsorship
None.
Conflicts of interest
All authors declared that there are no conflicts of interest.
Howlader N, Noone AM, et al (eds). SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2017, National Cancer Institute. Available from: https://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2017/. [Last accessed on 4 Jan 2021]SiegelRLMillerKDJemalACancer statistics, 2020.20207073010.3322/caac.21590BoveeJVMGFlanaganAMLazarAJNielsenGPYoshidaA20205th editionLyon FranceInternational Agency for Research on Cancer338499SusterDHungYPNielsenGPDifferential diagnosis of cartilaginous lesions of bone.2020144718210.5858/arpa.2019-0441-RA31877083ScheitzaPUhlMHauschildOInterobserver variability in the differential diagnosis of benign bone tumors and tumor-like lesions.20161884798710.1055/s-0041-11044926815281GemescuINThierfelderKMRehnitzCWeberMAImaging features of bone tumors: conventional radiographs and MR imaging correlation.2019277536710.1016/j.mric.2019.07.00831575404MehtaKMcBeeMPMihalDCEnglandEBRadiographic analysis of bone tumors: a systematic approach.20175219420810.1053/j.ro.2017.04.00228965541LarousserieFKreshakJGambarottiMAlberghiniMVanelDThe importance of radiographic imaging in the microscopic assessment of bone tumors.20138221001410.1016/j.ejrad.2011.11.03722236701AndreouDHardesJGoshegerGInterdisciplinary diagnostic and treatment of bone sarcomas of the extremities and trunk.20154790910.1055/s-0034-139685325897578FergusonJLTurnerSPBone cancer: diagnosis and treatment principles.20189820521330215968MuellerCGambarottiMBeniniSUnlocking bone for proteomic analysis and FISH.2019997082110.1038/s41374-018-0168-730659273DonnerLRCytogenetics of tumors of soft tissue and bone.1994781152610.1016/0165-4608(94)90079-57828142arkkanenMNordlingSBöhlingTComparison of cytogenetics, interphase cytogenetics, and DNA flow cytometry in bone tumors.1996261859110.1002/(SICI)1097-0320(19960915)26:3<185::AID-CYTO1>3.0.CO;2-E8889389VargasACSelingerCSatgunaseelanLFISH analysis of selected soft tissue tumors: diagnostic experience in a tertiary center.201915384710.1111/ajco.1298029806089TanasMRGoldblumJRFluorescence in situ hybridization in the diagnosis of soft tissue neoplasms: a review.2009163839110.1097/PAP.0b013e3181bb6b8619851129FittallMWMifsudWPillayNRecurrent rearrangements of FOS and FOSB define osteoblastoma.20189215010.1038/s41467-018-04530-z29858576PMC5984627SchaeferIMHornickJLDiagnostic immunohistochemistry for soft tissue and bone tumors: an update.2018254001210.1097/PAP.000000000000020430134255PMC6442933WangGYThomasDGDavisJLEWSR1-NFATC2 translocation-associated sarcoma clinicopathologic findings in a rare aggressive primary bone or soft tissue tumor.20194311122210.1097/PAS.000000000000126030994538BahramiAWeissSWMontgomeryERT-PCR analysis for FGF23 using paraffin sections in the diagnosis of phosphaturic mesenchymal tumors with and without known tumor induced osteomalacia.20093313485410.1097/PAS.0b013e3181aa231119609206BridgeRSRajaramVDehnerLPPfeiferJDPerryAMolecular diagnosis of Ewing sarcoma/primitive neuroectodermal tumor in routinely processed tissue: a comparison of two FISH strategies and RT-PCR in malignant round cell tumors.2006191810.1038/modpathol.380048616258512BaumhoerDAmaryFFlanaganAMAn update of molecular pathology of bone tumors. Lessons learned from investigating samples by next generation sequencing.201958889910.1002/gcc.2269930582658SzurianKKashoferKLiegl-AtzwangerBRole of next-generation sequencing as a diagnostic tool for the evaluation of bone and soft-tissue tumors.2017843233810.1159/00047866228817827LamSWCleton-JansenAMClevenAHGMolecular analysis of gene fusions in bone and soft tissue tumors by anchored multiplex PCR-based targeted next-generation sequencing.2018206536310.1016/j.jmoldx.2018.05.00730139549HogendoornPCAthanasouNBielackSESMO/EUROBONET working groupBone sarcomas: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up.201021v2041310.1093/annonc/mdq22320555083RubinBPAntonescuCRGannonFHMembers of the cancer committee, college of American pathologistsProtocol for the examination of specimens from patients with tumors of bone.2010134e1710.1043/1543-2165-134.4.e120367293RubinBPFletcherCDInwardsCProtocol for the examination of specimens from patients with soft tissue tumors of intermediate malignant potential, malignant soft tissue tumors, and benign/locally aggressive and malignant bone tumors.200613016162910.1043/1543-2165(2006)130[1616:PFTEOS]2.0.CO;217076523SinghVMSalungaRCHuangVJAnalysis of the effect of various decalcification agents on the quantity and quality of nucleic acid (DNA and RNA) recovered from bone biopsies.201317322610.1016/j.anndiagpath.2013.02.00123660273ChoiSEHongSWYoonSOProposal of an appropriate decalcification method of bone marrow biopsy specimens in the era of expanding genetic molecular study.2015492364210.4132/jptm.2015.03.1626018515PMC4440935MuellerCHarpoleMGEspinaVOne-step preservation and decalcification of bony tissue for molecular profiling.201716068510210.1007/978-1-4939-6990-6_628501995BabicALoftinIRStanislawSThe impact of pre-analytical processing on staining quality for H&E, dual hapten, dual color in situ hybridization and fluorescent in situ hybridization assays.20105228730010.1016/j.ymeth.2010.08.01220807574GoswamiRSLuthraRSinghRRIdentification of factors affecting the success of next-generation sequencing testing in solid tumors.20161452223710.1093/ajcp/aqv02327124905NagaiMMinegishiKKomadaMTsuchiyaMKamedaTYamadaSExtraction of DNA from human embryos after long-term preservation in formalin and Bouin’s solutions.201656112810.1111/cga.1214826662860AlersJCKrijtenburgPJVissersKJvan DekkenHEffect of bone decalcification procedures on DNA in situ hybridization and comparative genomic hybridization. EDTA is highly preferable to a routinely used acid decalcifier.1999477031010.1177/00221554990470051210219063RajATPatilSRaoRSA Comparison of conventional and microwave decalcification and processing of tooth and mandibular bone specimens.201610ZC121610.7860/JCDR/2016/21015.869427891473PMC5121791ImaizumiKTaniguchiKOgawaYAn evaluation of the effect of microwave irradiation on bone decalcification aimed to DNA extraction.201315272710.1016/j.legalmed.2013.06.00123838266ChowDHZhengLZTianLHoKSQinLGuoXApplication of ultrasound accelerates the decalcification process of bone matrix without affecting histological and immunohistochemical analysis.2019171122010.1016/j.jot.2018.08.00131194084PMC6551353MuellerCHarpoleMGEspinaVEspinaVOne-step preservation and decalcification of bony tissue for molecular profiling.2017New YorkSpringer8510210.1007/978-1-4939-6990-6_628501995KapilaSNNatarajanSBoazKPandyaJAYintiSRDriving the mineral out faster: simple modifications of the decalcification technique.20159ZC93710.7860/JCDR/2015/14641.656926501022PMC4606351LamSWvan IJzendoornDGPCleton-JansenAMSzuhaiKBovéeJVMGMolecular pathology of bone tumors.2019211718210.1016/j.jmoldx.2018.11.00230572118OsunaDde AlavaEMolecular pathology of sarcomas.20094122610.2174/15748870978704758519149759BridgeJACushman-VokounAMMolecular diagnostics of soft tissue tumors.201113558860110.1043/2010-0594-RAIR.121526957GuJSmithJLDowlingPKWanTSFluorescence in situ hybridization probe validation for clinical use.2017New YorkSpringer1011810.1007/978-1-4939-6703-2_1027910018JochmannKBachvarovaVVortkampAReprint of: heparan sulfate as a regulator of endochondral ossification and osteochondroma development.2014352394710.1016/j.matbio.2014.04.00124726293BovéeJVCleton-JansenAMWuytsWEXT-mutation analysis and loss of heterozygosity in sporadic and hereditary osteochondromas and secondary chondrosarcomas.1999656899810.1086/30253210441575PMC1377975SantosSCLRizzoIMPOTakataRISpeck-MartinsCEBrumJMSollaciCAnalysis of mutations in EXT1 and EXT2 in Brazilian patients with multiple osteochondromas.201863829210.1002/mgg3.38229529714PMC6014457HameetmanLDavidGYavasADecreased EXT expression and intracellular accumulation of heparan sulphate proteoglycan in osteochondromas and peripheral chondrosarcomas.200721139940910.1002/path.212717226760BellWCKleinMJPittMJSiegalGPMolecular pathology of chondroid neoplasms: part 1, benign lesions.2006358051310.1007/s00256-006-0191-417019614KumarAJainVKBharadwajMAryaRKOllier disease: pathogenesis, diagnosis, and management.201538e49750610.3928/01477447-20150603-5826091223FranceschiniNLamSWCleton-JansenAMBovéeJVMGWhat’s new in bone forming tumours of the skeleton?20204761475710.1007/s00428-019-02683-w31741049PMC6969005AmaryFMarkertEBerishaFFOS Expression in osteoid osteoma and osteoblastoma: a valuable ancillary diagnostic tool.2019431661710.1097/PAS.000000000000135531490237LamSWClevenAHGKroonHMBriaire-de BruijnIHSzuhaiKBovéeJVMGUtility of FOS as diagnostic marker for osteoid osteoma and osteoblastoma.20204764556310.1007/s00428-019-02684-931768625PMC7085481PanagopoulosIGorunovaLLobmaierIFOS-ANKH and FOS-RUNX2 fusion genes in osteoblastoma.202017161810.21873/cgp.2017632108038PMC7078835GiannicoGHoltGEHomlarKCJohnsonJPinntJBridgeJAOsteoblastoma characterized by a three-way translocation: report of a case and review of the literature.20091951687110.1016/j.cancergencyto.2009.06.02419963118SabaKHCornmarkLHofvanderJLoss of NF2 defines a genetic subgroup of non-FOS-rearranged osteoblastoma.20206231710.1002/cjp2.17232542935PMC7578308NordKHNilssonJArbajianERecurrent chromosome 22 deletions in osteoblastoma affect inhibitors of the Wnt/beta-catenin signaling pathway.20138e8072510.1371/journal.pone.008072524236197PMC3827481BovéeJVHogendoornPCNon-ossifying fibroma: A RAS-MAPK driven benign bone neoplasm.20192481273010.1002/path.525930809793PMC6593856BridgeJASwartsSJBureshCTrisomies 8 and 20 characterize a subgroup of benign fibrous lesions arising in both soft tissue and bone.19991547293310.1016/S0002-9440(10)65319-910079250PMC1866419E HorvaiAC JordanRFibro-osseous lesions of the craniofacial bones: β-catenin immunohistochemical analysis and CTNNB1 and APC mutation analysis.20148291710.1007/s12105-014-0535-724664543PMC4126923TrombettaDMacchiaGMandahlNNordKHMertensFMolecular genetic characterization of the 11q13 breakpoint in a desmoplastic fibroma of bone.2012205410310.1016/j.cancergen.2012.05.00222868002SongWvan den BergEKweeTCLow-grade central fibroblastic osteosarcoma may be differentiated from its mimicker desmoplastic fibroma by genetic analysis.201881610.1186/s13569-018-0104-z30159138PMC6106748BehjatiSTarpeyPSPresneauNDistinct H3F3A and H3F3B driver mutations define chondroblastoma and giant cell tumor of bone.20134514798210.1038/ng.281424162739PMC3839851SmithLTMayersonJNowakNJ20q11.1 amplification in giant-cell tumor of bone: Array CGH, FISH, and association with outcome.2006459576610.1002/gcc.2035416847944Kato KanekoMLiuXOkiHIsocitrate dehydrogenase mutation is frequently observed in giant cell tumor of bone.2014105744810.1111/cas.1241324898068PMC4317903SusterDIKurzawaPNeyazAChondroblastoma expresses RANKL by RNA in situ hybridization and may respond to denosumab therapy.20204415819010.1097/PAS.000000000000156832826531AlthofPAOhmoriKZhouMCytogenetic and molecular cytogenetic findings in 43 aneurysmal bone cysts: aberrations of 17p mapped to 17p13.2 by fluorescence in situ hybridization.2004175182510.1038/modpathol.380009015044915OliveiraAMChouMMUSP6-induced neoplasms: the biologic spectrum of aneurysmal bone cyst and nodular fasciitis.20144511110.1016/j.humpath.2013.03.00523769422BlackburnPRDavilaJIJacksonRARNA sequencing identifies a novel USP9X-USP6 promoter swap gene fusion in a primary aneurysmal bone cyst.2019585899410.1002/gcc.2274230767316GusevaNVJaberOTanasMRAnchored multiplex PCR for targeted next-generation sequencing reveals recurrent and novel USP6 fusions and upregulation of USP6 expression in aneurysmal bone cyst.2017562667710.1002/gcc.2243227910166ŠekoranjaDBoštjančičESalapuraVMavčičBPižemJPrimary aneurysmal bone cyst with a novel SPARC-USP6 translocation identified by next-generation sequencing.2018228-22912610.1016/j.cancergen.2018.07.00130553465ŠekoranjaDZupanAMavčičBNovel ASAP1-USP6, FAT1-USP6, SAR1A-USP6, and TNC-USP6 fusions in primary aneurysmal bone cyst.2020593576510.1002/gcc.2283632011035MilnePBigleyVBaconCMHematopoietic origin of Langerhans cell histiocytosis and Erdheim-Chester disease in adults.20171301677510.1182/blood-2016-12-75782328512190PMC5524529PostiniAMAndreacchioABoffanoMPaganoMBrach Del PreverAFagioliFLangerhans cell histiocytosis of bone in children: a long-term retrospective study.2012214576210.1097/BPB.0b013e32835367c022495611MariaPostini Adel PreverABPaganoMLangerhans cell histiocytosis: 40 years’ experience.201234353810.1097/MPH.0b013e318257a6ea22627580Badalian-VeryGVergilioJADegarBARecurrent BRAF mutations in Langerhans cell histiocytosis.201011619192310.1182/blood-2010-04-27908320519626PMC3173987PapoMCohen-AubartFTrefondLSystemic histiocytosis (langerhans cell histiocytosis, erdheim-chester disease, destombes-rosai-dorfman disease): from oncogenic mutations to inflammatory disorders.2019216210.1007/s11912-019-0810-631115724JourGOultacheASadowskaJGNAS mutations in fibrous dysplasia: a comparative study of standard sequencing and locked nucleic acid PCR sequencing on decalcified and nondecalcified formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissues.201624660710.1097/PAI.000000000000024226574629PMC5563825RiddleNDBuiMMFibrous dysplasia.2013137134810.5858/arpa.2012.0013-RS23276185PereiraTDSFGomesCCBrennanPAFonsecaFPGomezRSFibrous dysplasia of the jaws: integrating molecular pathogenesis with clinical, radiological, and histopathological features.2019483910.1111/jop.1279730376190MariePJCellular and molecular basis of fibrous dysplasia.200116981810.14670/HH-16.98111510989AmaryMFBacsiKMaggianiFIDH1 and IDH2 mutations are frequent events in central chondrosarcoma and central and periosteal chondromas but not in other mesenchymal tumours.20112243344310.1002/path.291321598255NicolleRAyadiMGomez-BrouchetAIntegrated molecular characterization of chondrosarcoma reveals critical determinants of disease progression.201910462210.1038/s41467-019-12525-731604924PMC6789144ParkerSJMetalloCMMetabolic consequences of oncogenic IDH mutations.2015152546210.1016/j.pharmthera.2015.05.00325956465PMC4489982HeXPangZGZhangXLConsistent amplification of FRS2 and MDM2 in low-grade osteosarcoma: a genetic study of 22 cases with clinicopathologic analysis.20184211435510.1097/PAS.000000000000112530001240LimbachALLingenMWMcElherneJThe utility of MDM2 and CDK4 immunohistochemistry and MDM2 FISH in craniofacial osteosarcoma.2020148899810.1007/s12105-020-01139-x32026294PMC7669933RighiAGambarottiMBeniniSMDM2 and CDK4 expression in periosteal osteosarcoma.2015465495310.1016/j.humpath.2014.12.00625680902ChenPCYenCCHungGYPanCCChenWMGene amplification and tumor grading in parosteal osteosarcoma.2019828899410.1097/JCMA.000000000000021131634336OlivosDJ3rdPerrienDSHookerAThe proto-oncogene function of Mdm2 in bone.201811988304010.1002/jcb.2713330011084PMC6348883ShingDCMcMullanDJRobertsPFUS/ERG gene fusions in Ewing’s tumors.2003634568457612907633DelattreOZucmanJPlougastelBGene fusion with an ETS DNA-binding domain caused by chromosome translocation in human tumours.1992359162510.1038/359162a01522903DelattreOZucmanJMelotTThe Ewing family of tumors - a subgroup of small-round-cell tumors defined by specific chimeric transcripts.1994331294910.1056/NEJM1994080433105038022439WatsonSPerrinVGuillemotDTranscriptomic definition of molecular subgroups of small round cell sarcomas.2018245294010.1002/path.505329431183KayBRMolecular genetics and cytogenetics of Ewing’s sarcoma.199510388677240FolpeALPhosphaturic mesenchymal tumors: a review and update.201936260810.1053/j.semdp.2019.07.00231301876LeeJCSuSYChangouCACharacterization of FN1-FGFR1 and novel FN1-FGF1 fusion genes in a large series of phosphaturic mesenchymal tumors.20162913354610.1038/modpathol.2016.13727443518LeeJCJengYMSuSYIdentification of a novel FN1-FGFR1 genetic fusion as a frequent event in phosphaturic mesenchymal tumour.20152355394510.1002/path.446525319834GrahamRPHodgeJCFolpeALA cytogenetic analysis of 2 cases of phosphaturic mesenchymal tumor of mixed connective tissue type.2012431334810.1016/j.humpath.2011.11.02022503486XuJLiDXieLTangSGuoWMesenchymal chondrosarcoma of bone and soft tissue: a systematic review of 107 patients in the past 20 years.201510e012221610.1371/journal.pone.012221625849226PMC4388572WangLMotoiTKhaninRIdentification of a novel, recurrent HEY1-NCOA2 fusion in mesenchymal chondrosarcoma based on a genome-wide screen of exon-level expression data.2012511273910.1002/gcc.2093722034177PMC3235801NaumannSKrallmanPAUnniKKFidlerMENeffJRBridgeJATranslocation der(13;21)(q10;q10) in skeletal and extraskeletal mesenchymal chondrosarcoma.200215572610.1038/modpathol.388056512011263NordKHLilljebjörnHVezziFGRM1 is upregulated through gene fusion and promoter swapping in chondromyxoid fibroma.201446474710.1038/ng.292724658000SandbergAABridgeJAUpdates on the cytogenetics and molecular genetics of bone and soft tissue tumors: osteosarcoma and related tumors.200314513012885459RickelKFangFTaoJNMolecular genetics of osteosarcoma.2017102697910.1016/j.bone.2016.10.01727760307PMC5393957LinYHJewellBEGingoldJOsteosarcoma: molecular pathogenesis and iPSC modeling.2017237375510.1016/j.molmed.2017.06.00428735817PMC5558609LiCJCongYLiuXZThe progress of molecular diagnostics of osteosarcoma.201621203010.2741/437326709758NegriGLGrandeBMDelaidelliAIntegrative genomic analysis of matched primary and metastatic pediatric osteosarcoma.20192493193110.1002/path.531931236944LinYSegerNChenYhTERT promoter mutations in chondrosarcomas associate with progression and disease-related mortality.20183118344110.1038/s41379-018-0098-330065261van OosterwijkJGde JongDvan RulerMAThree new chondrosarcoma cell lines: one grade III conventional central chondrosarcoma and two dedifferentiated chondrosarcomas of bone.20121237510.1186/1471-2407-12-37522928481PMC3484068ZhuGGNafaKAgaramNGenomic profiling identifies association of IDH1/IDH2 mutation with longer relapse-free and metastasis-free survival in high-grade chondrosarcoma.2020264192710.1158/1078-0432.CCR-18-421231615936PMC6980683SakamotoAThe molecular pathogenesis of dedifferentiated chondrosarcoma.201448262510.4103/0019-5413.13250624932031PMC4052024SwartsSJNeffJRJohanssonSLBridgeJACytogenetic analysis of dedifferentiated chondrosarcoma.199689495110.1016/0165-4608(96)00022-28689610MakiseNSekimizuMKonishiEH3K27me3 deficiency defines a subset of dedifferentiated chondrosarcomas with characteristic clinicopathological features.2019324354510.1038/s41379-018-0140-530291346AliNMNiadaSMorrisMRComprehensive molecular characterization of adamantinoma and OFD-like adamantinoma bone tumors.2019439657410.1097/PAS.000000000000125131021853GleasonBCLiegl-AtzwangerBKozakewichHPOsteofibrous dysplasia and adamantinoma in children and adolescents: a clinicopathologic reappraisal.2008323637610.1097/PAS.0b013e318150d53e18300815TaylorRMKashimaTGFergusonDJSzuhaiKHogendoornPCAthanasouNAAnalysis of stromal cells in osteofibrous dysplasia and adamantinoma of long bones.201225566410.1038/modpathol.2011.14121983933KanamoriMAntonescuCRScottMExtra copies of chromosomes 7, 8, 12, 19, and 21 are recurrent in adamantinoma.20013162110.1016/S1525-1578(10)60644-711227067PMC1907347HazelbagHMWesselsJWMollevangersPvan den BergEMolenaarWMHogendoornPCCytogenetic analysis of adamantinoma of long bones: further indications for a common histogenesis with osteofibrous dysplasia.19979751110.1016/s0165-4608(96)00308-19242211ShihARChebibIDeshpandeVDicksonBCIafrateAJNielsenGPMolecular characteristics of poorly differentiated chordoma.201958804810.1002/gcc.2278231135077Scheil-BertramSKapplerRvon BaerAMolecular profiling of chordoma.20144410415510.3892/ijo.2014.226824452533PMC3977807GilZFlissDMCytogenetic analysis of skull base tumors: where do we stand?201220130610.1097/MOO.0b013e328350687022277924GilZFlissDMVoskoboinikNCytogenetic analysis of three variants of clival chordoma.20041541243010.1016/j.cancergencyto.2004.01.03115474147ScheilSBrüderleinSLiehrTGenome-wide analysis of sixteen chordomas by comparative genomic hybridization and cytogenetics of the first human chordoma cell line, U-CH1.2001322031110.1002/gcc.118411579460BrohlASKahenEYoderSJTeerJKReedDRThe genomic landscape of malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors: diverse drivers of Ras pathway activation.201771499210.1038/s41598-017-15183-129118384PMC5678116WescheWAKhareVRaoBNBowmanLCParhamDMMalignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor of bone in children and adolescents.199921596710.1007/s1002499001049949222LiuWJZhangSLiuJXShaoZWIntraosseous malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor of 2 consecutive lumbar vertebrae: a case report and literature review.20191304596610.1016/j.wneu.2019.07.11731349078DavilaAConradEUAyalaGEBeckmannNMIntraosseous malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor of the sacrum in a patient with neurofibromatosis type I.201914880410.1016/j.radcr.2019.05.00331193182PMC6520564DemiccoEGWangWLMadewellJEOsseous myxochondroid sarcoma: a detailed study of 5 cases of extraskeletal myxoid chondrosarcoma of the bone.2013377526210.1097/PAS.0b013e3182796e4623588370FinosLRighiAFrisoniTPrimary extraskeletal myxoid chondrosarcoma of bone: Report of three cases and review of the literature.2017213461610.1016/j.prp.2017.02.00828249774HisaokaMHashimotoHExtraskeletal myxoid chondrosarcoma: updated clinicopathological and molecular genetic characteristics.2005554536310.1111/j.1440-1827.2005.01853.x15998372TranHShillingfordNThomasSHammoudehJZhouSPrimary epithelioid sarcoma of the zygomatic bone.201922252710.2350/16-03-1798-CR.127442626RaouxDPéoc’hMPedeutourFVaunoisBDecouvelaereAVFolpeALPrimary epithelioid sarcoma of bone: report of a unique case, with immunohistochemical and fluorescent in situ hybridization confirmation of INI1 deletion.200933954810.1097/PAS.0b013e31819b92d519342946WojcikJBBellizziAMDal CinPPrimary sclerosing epithelioid fibrosarcoma of bone: analysis of a series.20143815384410.1097/PAS.000000000000026524921641TsudaYDicksonBCDrySMClinical and molecular characterization of primary sclerosing epithelioid fibrosarcoma of bone and review of the literature.2020592172410.1002/gcc.2282231675134PMC7082133KosemehmetogluKArdicFKilpatrickSEAydingozUSumathiVPMichalMSclerosing epithelioid fibrosarcoma of bone: morphological, immunophenotypical, and molecular findings of 9 cases.202010.1007/s00428-020-02953-y33084978KalilRKSantini-AraujoEKalilRBertoniFParkYKLiposarcoma of bone.2015LondonSpringer569573TiemeierGLBrownJMPratapSEPleomorphic liposarcoma of bone: a rare primary malignant bone tumour.20188210.1186/s13569-018-0089-729449935PMC5807841ZhangSWangXQPrimary dedifferentiated liposarcoma of the femur presenting with malignant fibrous histiocytoma: a case report and review of the literature.20148663610.3892/ol.2014.215025013482PMC4081370RovliasABalanikaANomikosAMelissarisSPrimary myxoid liposarcoma of the upper thoracic spine in an elderly patient.20178S120210.4103/jnrp.jnrp_99_1728936087PMC5602236SandbergAAUpdates on the cytogenetics and molecular genetics of bone and soft tissue tumors: liposarcoma.200415512410.1016/j.cancergencyto.2004.08.00515527898ParkYKUnniKKKimYWPrimary alveolar soft part sarcoma of bone.199935411710.1046/j.1365-2559.1999.035005411.x10583555JaberOIKirbyPAAlveolar soft part sarcoma.201513914596210.5858/arpa.2014-0385-RS26516944Kawamura-SaitoMYamazakiYKanekoKFusion between CIC and DUX4 up-regulates PEA3 family genes in Ewing-like sarcomas with t(4;19)(q35;q13) translocation.20061521253710.1093/hmg/ddl13616717057PižemJŠekoranjaDZupanAFUS-NFATC2 or EWSR1-NFATC2 fusions are present in a large proportion of simple bone cysts.20204416233410.1097/PAS.000000000000158432991339PierronGTirodeFLucchesiCA new subtype of bone sarcoma defined by BCOR-CCNB3 gene fusion.201244461610.1038/ng.110722387997SzuhaiKIjszengaMde JongDKarseladzeATankeHJHogendoornPCThe NFATc2 gene is involved in a novel cloned translocation in a Ewing sarcoma variant that couples its function in immunology to oncology.20091522596810.1158/1078-0432.CCR-08-218419318479DavicioniEAndersonMJFinckensteinFGMolecular classification of rhabdomyosarcoma - genotypic and phenotypic determinants of diagnosis: a report from the Children’s Oncology Group.20091745506410.2353/ajpath.2009.08063119147825PMC2630563BaloghPBánuszRCsókaMVáradiZVargaESápiZPrimary alveolar rhabdomyosarcoma of the bone: two cases and review of the literature.2016119910.1186/s13000-016-0552-927756397PMC5069778AgaramNPZhangLSungYSExpanding the spectrum of intraosseous rhabdomyosarcoma: correlation between 2 distinct gene fusions and phenotype.20194369570210.1097/PAS.000000000000122730720533PMC6613942AndersonJGordonAMcManusAShipleyJPritchard-JonesKDisruption of imprinted genes at chromosome region 11p15.5 in paediatric rhabdomyosarcoma.19991340810.1038/sj.neo.790005210935489PMC1508094WangGYLucasDRPrimary leiomyosarcoma of bone: review and update.20191431332710.5858/arpa.2019-0375-RA31661313WirbelRJVerelstSHanselmannRRembergerKKubaleRMutschlerWEPrimary leiomyosarcoma of bone: clinicopathologic, immunohistochemical, and molecular biologic aspects.199856354110.1007/BF023038349831113VerbekeSLFletcherCDAlberghiniMA reappraisal of hemangiopericytoma of bone; analysis of cases reclassified as synovial sarcoma and solitary fibrous tumor of bone.2010347778310.1097/PAS.0b013e3181dbedf120421780RobinsonDRWuYMKalyana-SundaramSIdentification of recurrent NAB2-STAT6 gene fusions in solitary fibrous tumor by integrative sequencing.201345180510.1038/ng.250923313952PMC3654808GeXHLiaoJSChooRJYanJCZhangJFSolitary fibrous tumor of the ilium: a case report.201796e935510.1097/MD.000000000000935529390521PMC5758223HorvaiADashtiNKRubinBPGenetic and molecular reappraisal of spindle cell adamantinoma of bone reveals a small subset of misclassified intraosseous synovial sarcoma.2019322314110.1038/s41379-018-0115-630206413FujibuchiTMiyawakiJKidaniTIntraosseous synovial sarcoma of the distal ulna: a case report and review of the literature.20191911610.1186/s12885-019-5325-x30709383PMC6359868ShahWUShujaatSDUllahNMansoorSSynovial sarcoma of cervicodorsal spine: a case report.2018681100110430317311KimJLeeSHChoiYLBaeGEKimESEohWSynovial sarcoma of the spine: a case involving paraspinal muscle with extensive calcification and the surgical consideration in treatment.201423273110.1007/s00586-013-3034-824121750PMC3897827VermaARekhiBMyoepithelial tumor of soft tissue and bone: a current perspective.2017328617710.14670/HH-11-87928145559RekhiBAmarePGuliaAPrimary intraosseous myoepithelioma arising in the iliac bone and displaying trisomies of 11, 15, 17 with del (16q) and del (22q11)--A rare case report with review of literature.2011207780510.1016/j.prp.2011.09.00422054860RekhiBJoshiSPanchwaghYClinicopathological features of five unusual cases of intraosseous myoepithelial carcinomas, mimicking conventional primary bone tumours, including EWSR1 rearrangement in one case.20161242789010.1111/apm.1250626768122SuurmeijerAJHDicksonBCSwansonDA morphologic and molecular reappraisal of myoepithelial tumors of soft tissue, bone, and viscera with EWSR1 and FUS gene rearrangements.2020593485610.1002/gcc.2283531994243PMC7170037YamaguchiSYamazakiYIshikawaYKawaguchiNMukaiHNakamuraTEWSR1 is fused to POU5F1 in a bone tumor with translocation t(6;22)(p21;q12).2005432172210.1002/gcc.2017115729702XianJRighiAVanelDBaldiniNErraniCEpithelioid hemangioma of bone: a unique case with multifocal metachronous bone lesions.20191010687210.1016/j.jcot.2019.03.00931708630PMC6834962van IJzendoornDGde JongDRomagosaCFusion events lead to truncation of FOS in epithelioid hemangioma of bone.2015545657410.1002/gcc.2226926173738HuangSCZhangLSungYSFrequent FOS gene rearrangements in epithelioid hemangioma: a molecular study of 58 cases with morphologic reappraisal.20153913132110.1097/PAS.000000000000046926135557PMC4567921VerbekeSLBovéeJVPrimary vascular tumors of bone: a spectrum of entities?201145415121904630PMC3160606XuYJChenWXChengHLinZYEpithelioid hemangioendothelioma of the bone: a case report with findings of bone scintigraphy.201998e1554610.1097/MD.000000000001554631083212PMC6531225OtaniSNakayamaRSekitaTPseudomyogenic hemangioendothelioma of bone treated with denosumab: a case report.20191987210.1186/s12885-019-6072-831481040PMC6724307InyangAMertensFPulsFPrimary pseudomyogenic hemangioendothelioma of bone.2016405879810.1097/PAS.000000000000061326872012WaltherCTayebwaJLilljebjörnHA novel SERPINE1-FOSB fusion gene results in transcriptional up-regulation of FOSB in pseudomyogenic haemangioendothelioma.20142325344010.1002/path.432224374978BaliakaABalisGMichalopoulou-ManoloutsiouEPapanikolaouANikolaidouAPrimary angiosarcoma of bone. A case report.201317180224376329PMC3743628PalmeriniELeithnerAWindhagerRAngiosarcoma of bone: a retrospective study of the European Musculoskeletal Oncology Society (EMSOS).2020101085310.1038/s41598-020-66579-532616718PMC7331738DeshpandeVRosenbergAEO’ConnellJXNielsenGPEpithelioid angiosarcoma of the bone: a series of 10 cases.2003277091610.1097/00000478-200306000-0000112766574HuangSCZhangLSungYSRecurrent CIC gene abnormalities in Angiosarcomas: a molecular study of 120 cases with concurrent investigation of PLCG1, KDR, MYC, and FLT4 gene alterations.2016406455510.1097/PAS.000000000000058226735859PMC4833528AliNMNiadaSBriniATGenomic and transcriptomic characterisation of undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma of bone.20192471667610.1002/path.517630281149LiXNZhangZKLatifMChenWCuiJLPengZGSynovium as a widespread pathway to the adjacent joint in undifferentiated high-grade pleomorphic sarcoma of the tibia: a case report.201897e987010.1097/MD.000000000000987029465573PMC5842000ZhouNSchäferRLiTFangMYLiuLYA primary undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma of the lumbosacral region harboring a LMNA-NTRK1 gene fusion with durable clinical response to crizotinib: a case report.20181884210.1186/s12885-018-4749-z30134855PMC6106902CerejeiraAGomesNCosta-SilvaMMoreiraEAzevedoFUndifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma presenting as an exophytic pedunculated tumor on the left scapula.20192513030/qt738094fs31450284GarcesSMedeirosLJPatelKPMutually exclusive recurrent KRAS and MAP2K1 mutations in Rosai-Dorfman disease.20173013677710.1038/modpathol.2017.5528664935PMC5837474MosheimerBAOpplBZandiehSBone involvement in rosai-dorfman disease (RDD): a case report and systematic literature review.2017192910.1007/s11926-017-0656-628401384PMC5388731MavrogenisAFIgoumenouVGAntoniadouTRare diseases of bone: Erdheim-Chester and Rosai-Dorfman non-Langerhans cell histiocytoses.201833819010.1302/2058-5241.3.17004730034819PMC6026883RossABDavisKWBuehlerDChanBYPrimary rosai-dorfman disease of bone: a report of two cases.20192019172013110.1155/2019/172013130719368PMC6335665OzkayaNRosenblumMKDurhamBHThe histopathology of Erdheim-Chester disease: a comprehensive review of a molecularly characterized cohort.2018315819710.1038/modpathol.2017.16029192649PMC6718953