Familial rhabdoid tumour '<i>avant la lettre</i>'—from pathology review to exome sequencing and back again
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Here we provide compelling evidence that next-generation sequencing will revolutionize diagnostics. We reappraised a case from 1991, published in 1993, describing the unique occurrence of an ovarian immature teratoma arising in a young woman and a clonally distinct intracerebral immature teratoma developing in her daughter. We conducted whole-exome sequencing on constitutional DNA from the mother and her daughter and identified a previously unreported nonsense mutation (c.3533G>A; p.Trp1178*) in the chromatin remodelling gene, SMARCA4, that was present in both individuals and was subject to nonsense-mediated decay. Tumour analysis by Sanger sequencing revealed a somatic SMARCA4 mutation in both the mother (c.2438+1G>T) and her daughter (c.3229C>T; p.Arg1077*), which are predicted to be truncating. As immature teratomas are classified as germ cell tumours, we performed a comprehensive mutation survey of 106 apparently sporadic germ cell tumours, but did not find any other clearly deleterious SMARCA4 mutations. Recently, inactivating mutations in SMARCA4 have been found in two cases of rhabdoid tumour predisposition syndrome type 2. In the light of these findings, renewed efforts to locate previously unobtainable tumour samples were successfully undertaken. Histopathological and immunohistochemical re-analysis of the daughter's tumour revealed that it was indeed a rhabdoid tumour (atypical teratoid/rhabdoid tumour). In this context, the original pathology report of the mother's ovarian tumour was re-interpreted as describing a malignant rhabdoid tumour of the ovary. This report raises the question as to whether molecular genetic analysis should be included in tumour classification, alongside more traditional microscopy-based methods. The use of new sequencing technologies, particularly when applied to archived samples, will lead to many more 'molecular rediagnoses'. This is the earliest known case of rhabdoid tumour predisposition syndrome type 2 and the first described case with an autosomal dominant pattern of inheritance, only discovered through an exome sequencing project.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".