Article

TLE1 as a diagnostic immunohistochemical marker for synovial sarcoma emerging from gene expression profiling studies

Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, United States
American Journal of Surgical Pathology (Impact Factor: 4.59). 03/2007; 31(2):240-6. DOI: 10.1097/01.pas.0000213330.71745.39
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Synovial sarcoma is a soft tissue malignancy defined by the SYT-SSX fusion oncogene. Demonstration of the t(X;18) by cytogenetics, fluorescence in situ hybridization or reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction has become the gold standard for diagnosis, but practical considerations limit the availability of these methods. Gene expression profiling studies performed by several independent groups have consistently identified TLE1 as an excellent discriminator of synovial sarcoma from other sarcomas, including histologically similar tumors such as malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor. TLE proteins (human homologues of Groucho) are transcriptional corepressors that inhibit Wnt signaling and other cell fate determination signals, and so have an established role in repressing differentiation. We examined the expression of TLE proteins in synovial sarcoma and in a broad range of mesenchymal tumors using tissue microarrays to assess the value of anti-TLE antibodies in the immunohistochemical confirmation of synovial sarcoma. We demonstrate that TLE expression is a consistent feature of synovial sarcoma using both a well-characterized monoclonal antibody recognizing the TLE family of proteins and a commercially available polyclonal antibody raised against TLE1. Both antibodies gave intense and/or diffuse nuclear staining in 91/94 molecularly confirmed synovial sarcomas. Moderate staining is occasionally seen in schwannoma and solitary fibrous tumor/hemangiopericytoma. In contrast, TLE staining is detected much less frequently and at lower levels, if at all, in 40 other mesenchymal tumors. Our findings establish TLE as a robust immunohistochemical marker for synovial sarcoma, and may have implications for understanding the biology of synovial sarcoma and for developing experimental therapies for this cancer.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
176 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Soft tissue sarcoma is the most common malignant cardiac tumor. The chief modes of presentation are embolization, obstruction, and arrhythmogenesis. We describe an unusual case of a 27-year-old man who presented with nausea and dyspnea on exertion. Transthoracic echocardiography and computed tomography revealed a huge mass in the right heart that extended through the inferior vena cava and right renal vein to the right kidney. The cardiac mass was resected, and an immunohistochemical analysis revealed it to be a TLE1-positive synovial sarcoma. After surgery, the patient received serial adjuvant chemotherapy. We herein describe the case with a brief review.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of the present study was to re-evaluate TLE-1 staining and the molecular detection methods of SS18-SSX transcripts for synovial sarcoma. We analyzed TLE-1 expression in 50 molecularly confirmed synovial sarcomas and 85 other soft tissue tumors with three previously published scoring systems. In the present study, 39 to 43 synovial sarcomas showed TLE-1 nuclear staining, whereas 9-15 of 85 other soft tissue tumors showed TLE-1 staining (P < 0.0001). The specificities of strong TLE-1 staining were 100%, 97.6% and 98.8%. The positive likelihood ratio of moderate and strong TLE-1 nuclear expression was >10 in all three scoring systems. There was no difference in TLE-1 staining between different subtypes of synovial sarcoma (P > 0.05). Based on a comparison between conventional reverse transcription (RT)-polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), quantitative RT-PCR is a more sensitive method than conventional RT-PCR and FISH to detect t(X;18). A positive correlation between TLE-1 staining and SS18-SSX translocation was detected by conventional PCR (P < 0.05). In conclusion, although all three scoring systems could differentiate synovial sarcoma from other soft tissue tumors, diffuse moderate to severe intensity tumors showed the highest specificity in the diagnosis of synovial sarcoma.
    Pathology International 12/2013; 63(12):573-80. DOI:10.1111/pin.12113 · 1.59 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The cytologic diagnosis of synovial sarcoma (SS) can be difficult when it occurs in unusual locations, atypical age groups, and/or have unusual morphology. We report a case of primary mediastinal SS in a 65-year-old male with a long smoking history who presented with increasing shortness of breath and was found to have a 14.2 cm mediastinal mass. Smears from the endobronchial ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration of the mass were moderately cellular consisting of loosely cohesive clusters, some of which demonstrated nuclear molding, and dispersed single cells. The relatively uniform tumor cells had a high nuclear-to-cytoplasmic ratio, finely granular chromatin, and inconspicuous nucleoli. Some of the single cells had spindled morphology with unipolar wispy tails and naked nuclei. Based on the clinical presentation and the cytomorphologic features, our initial differential diagnoses included atypical carcinoid, small cell carcinoma, basaloid squamous cell carcinoma, sarcoma, and lymphoma. Immunohistochemical studies on the cell block sections revealed that the tumor cells were focally positive for cytokeratin and diffusely positive for CD56, while negative for CD45, synaptophysin and chromogranin. Ultimately, an immunohistochemical stain for TLE-1 demonstrated diffusely strong nuclear positivity and molecular studies showed the presence of the t(X; 18) SYT/SSX1 translocation confirming the diagnosis of SS. In this report, we describe the cytomorphologic features of SS, its diagnostic pitfalls, and potential mimics in the mediastinum. Diagn. Cytopathol. 2014;42:170-176. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
    Diagnostic Cytopathology 02/2014; 42(2):170-6. DOI:10.1002/dc.22912 · 1.52 Impact Factor