Recurrent BRAF Gene Rearrangements in Myxoinflammatory Fibroblastic Sarcomas, but Not Hemosiderotic Fibrolipomatous Tumors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Myxoinflammatory fibroblastic sarcoma (MIFS) is a low grade soft tissue sarcoma with a predilection for acral sites, being associated with a high rate of local recurrence but very infrequent distant metastases. Although a t(1;10) translocation resulting in TGFBR3-MGEA5 fusion has been reported as a recurrent genetic event in MIFS, this abnormality is seen only in a subset of cases. As no studies to date have investigated the spectrum of alternative genetic alterations in TGFBR3-MGEA5 fusion negative MIFS, we undertook a genetic analysis of this particular cohort for further molecular classification. Triggered by an index case occurring in the finger of a 37-year-old female and harboring a novel TOM1L2-BRAF fusion by targeted RNA sequencing we investigated potential recurrent BRAF abnormalities by screening a large group of 19 TGFBR3-MGEA5 fusion negative MIFS by fluorescence in situ hybridization. There were 6 (32%) additional MIFS with BRAF genetic abnormalities, including 5 gene rearrangements and one showing BRAF amplification. Interestingly, VGLL3 amplification, a recurrent genetic abnormality coexisting with t(1;10) in some MIFS, was also detected by fluorescence in situ hybridization in 4/6 (67%) BRAF-rearranged MIFS, but not in the BRAF-amplified case. Up-regulated VGLL3 mRNA expression was also demonstrated in the index case by RNA sequencing. The 7 BRAF-rearranged/amplified MIFS arose in the fingers (n=3), and 1 each in wrist, forearm, foot, and knee, of adult patients (36 to 74 y; M:F=4:3). The histologic spectrum ranged from predominantly solid growth of plump histiocytoid to epithelioid tumor cells with focal myxoid change to a predominantly myxoid background with scattered tumor cells. Varying degree of inflammatory infiltrates and large tumor cells with virocyte-like macronucleoli were observed in most cases. Immunohistochemical stains of phosphorylated ERK, a downstream effector of BRAF activation, were positive in all 4 cases tested (2 diffuse strong, 2 focal strong). Unlike t(1;10), BRAF rearrangements were only found in MIFS but not in 6 hemosiderotic fibrolipomatous tumor (HFLT) lacking TGFBR3-MGEA5 fusions (including 2 pure HFLT, 2 hybrid HFLT-MIFS, and 2 associated with pleomorphic hyalinizing angiectatic 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".