Recurrent NTRK1 Gene Fusions Define a Novel Subset of Locally Aggressive Lipofibromatosis-like Neural Tumors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The family of pediatric fibroblastic and myofibroblastic proliferations encompasses a wide spectrum of pathologic entities with overlapping morphologies and ill-defined genetic abnormalities. Among the superficial lesions, lipofibromatosis (LPF), composed of an admixture of adipose tissue and fibroblastic elements, in the past has been variously classified as infantile fibromatosis or fibrous hamartoma of infancy. In this regard, we have encountered a group of superficial soft tissue tumors occurring in children and young adults, with a notably infiltrative growth pattern reminiscent of LPF, variable cytologic atypia, and a distinct immunoprofile of S100 protein and CD34 reactivity, suggestive of neural differentiation. SOX10 and melanocytic markers were negative in all cases tested. In contrast, a control group of classic LPF displayed bland, monomorphic histology and lacked S100 protein immunoreactivity. To define the pathogenetic abnormalities in these seemingly distinctive groups, we performed RNA sequencing for fusion gene discovery in 2 cases each, followed by screening for any novel alterations identified in a larger cohort representing both entities. The 2 index LPF-like neural tumors (LPF-NT) showed TPR-NTRK1 and TPM3-NTRK1 gene fusions, which were further validated by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction. Subsequent FISH screening of 14 LPF-NT identified recurrent NTRK1 gene rearrangements in 10 (71%) cases. Of the NTRK1-negative LPF-NT cases, 1 case each showed ROS1 and ALK gene rearrangements. In contrast, none of the 25 classic LPFs showed NTRK1 gene rearrangements, although regional abnormalities were noted in the 1q21-22 region by FISH in a majority of cases. Furthermore, NTRK1 immunostaining was positive only in NTRK1-rearranged S100-positive LPF-NT but negative in classic LPF. These results suggest that NTRK1 oncogenic activation through gene fusion defines a novel and distinct subset of soft tissue tumors resembling LPF, but displaying cytologic atypia and a neural immunophenotype, provisionally named LPF-like neural tumors.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".