Gene fusion characterisation of rare aggressive prostate cancer variants—adenosquamous carcinoma, pleomorphic giant‐cell carcinoma, and sarcomatoid carcinoma: an analysis of 19 cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To evaluate the molecular underpinnings of the rare aggressive prostate cancer variants adenosquamous carcinoma, pleomorphic giant-cell carcinoma, and sarcomatoid carcinoma. METHODS AND RESULTS: We retrieved 19 tumours with one or more variant(s), and performed ERG immunohistochemistry, a next-generation sequencing assay targeting recurrent gene fusions, and fluorescence in-situ hybridisation (FISH) for ERG and BRAF. Divergent differentiation included: sarcomatoid carcinoma (n = 10), adenosquamous carcinoma (n = 7), and pleomorphic giant-cell carcinoma (n = 7). Five patients had more than one variant. Four had variants only in metastases. ERG rearrangement was detected in nine (47%, seven via sequencing, showing TMPRSS2-ERG fusions and one GRHL2-ERG fusion, and two via FISH, showing rearrangement via deletion). ERG was immunohistochemically positive in the adenocarcinoma in eight of nine (89%) patients, but was immunohistochemically positive in the variant in only five of nine patients (56%, typically decreased). One patient had a false-positive ERG immunohistochemical result in the sarcomatoid component despite a negative FISH result. Two (11%) harboured BRAF fusions (FAM131A-BRAF and SND1-BRAF). CONCLUSIONS: ERG fusions are present in these rare prostate cancer variants with a frequency close to that in conventional prostate cancer (9/19, 47%). ERG immunohistochemistry usually detects rearrangement in the adenocarcinoma, but is less sensitive for the variant histology, with weak to negative staining. Adenosquamous and sarcomatoid variants can, particularly, occur together. Molecular assessment may be an additional tool in selected cases to confirm the prostatic origin of unusual tumours. The presence of two BRAF rearrangements suggests that this gene fusion may be enriched in this setting, as RAF kinase fusions have been previously reported in 1-2% of prostate cancers.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".