Sarcomatoid Yolk Sac Tumor Harbors Somatic Mutations That Are Otherwise Rare in Testicular Germ Cell Tumors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In testicular germ cell tumors (TGCTs), components with nonspecific sarcomatous features that express keratins and glypican 3 are classified as sarcomatoid yolk sac tumor (SYST). SYST is most frequently seen in metastatic sites after chemotherapy. Like so-called "somatic-type" malignancies arising in TGCTs, SYST is markedly resistant to systemic therapy and has a more aggressive clinical course than conventional types of TGCT. However, the clinicopathologic and molecular features of SYST remain incompletely described. This study evaluated a multi-institutional series of 20 SYSTs using massively parallel sequencing and p53 immunohistochemistry. The histologic and clinical characteristics of the cases were also assessed, including analyses of disease-specific outcomes. DNA sequencing identified somatic mutations in 12/20 cases (60%), including recurrent TP53 and RIF1 mutations (present in 4/20 cases, 20% each). In 3 of the 4 SYST with TP53 mutations, there was molecular evidence of loss of heterozygosity. Immunohistochemistry demonstrated diffuse overexpression of p53 protein in 3/4 (75%) cases with TP53 mutations. The remaining TP53-mutant case demonstrated multifocal overexpression of p53, suggestive of subclonal inactivation of the gene. Overexpression of p53 protein was not seen in any of 15 TP53 wild-type cases evaluated by immunohistochemistry. A subset of 4 cases underwent RNA sequencing (fusion panel), which demonstrated the absence of oncogenic gene fusions. A 2-tiered grading system based on 3 histologic parameters (cellularity, number of mitoses, and necrosis) demonstrated that high-grade SYSTs have a higher risk of disease-specific death compared to low-grade tumors. The risk of disease-specific mortality was also higher in SYSTs with somatic mutations. In conclusion, this study demonstrated that 60% of SYSTs harbor somatic oncogenic mutations that are otherwise rare in TGCTs, and the presence of these mutations is associated with an aggressive clinical course. In addition, the results presented herein suggest that grading SYSTs may be clinically relevant.
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".