 Abstract | | |
Embryonal tumors are a heterogenous group of neoplasms mostly defined by recurrent genetic driver events. They have been, previously, broadly classified as either medulloblastoma or supratentorial primitive neuroectodermal tumors (PNETs). However, the application of DNA methylation/gene expression profiling in large series of neoplasms histologically defined as PNET, revealed tumors, which showed genetic events associated with glial tumors. These findings led to the definitive removal of the term “PNET” in the 2016 World Health Organization (WHO) classification of CNS tumors. Moreover, further studies on a large scale of methylation profiling have allowed the identification of new molecular-defined entities and have largely influenced the 5th edition of the WHO classification of CNS tumors (WHO CNS5) for both medulloblastomas and other CNS embryonal tumors. The importance of molecular characteristics in CNS embryonal tumors is well represented by the identification of different molecular groups and subgroups in medulloblastoma. So, in the CNS5, the emerged group 3 and group 4 belong to the classification, and the four molecular and morphologic types are now combined into a unique section. Among other embryonal tumors, two new recognized entities are introduced in CNS5: CNS neuroblastoma, FOXR2-activated, and CNS tumor with BCOR internal tandem duplication (ITD). Embryonal tumor with multilayered rosettes (ETMR), already present in the previous classification now has a revised nomenclature as a result of the new DICER1 alteration, additional to the formerly known C19MC. Regarding atypical teratoid/rhabdoid tumor (AT/RT), three molecular subgroups are recognized in CNS5. The combination of histopathological and molecular features reflects the complexity of all these tumors and gives critical information in terms of prognosis and therapy. This encourages the use of a layered diagnostic report with the integrated diagnosis at the top, succeeded by layers including the histological, molecular, and other essential details.
Keywords: Atypical teratoid/rhabdoid tumor, BCOR, central nervous system, embryonal tumor, embryonal tumor with multilayered rosettes, FOXR2, medulloblastoma, neuroblastoma, World Health Organization
How to cite this article:
Gianno F, Miele E, Antonelli M, Giangaspero F. Embryonal tumors in the WHO CNS5 classification: A Review. Indian J Pathol Microbiol 2022;65, Suppl S1:73-82 |
How to cite this URL:
Gianno F, Miele E, Antonelli M, Giangaspero F. Embryonal tumors in the WHO CNS5 classification: A Review. Indian J Pathol Microbiol [serial online] 2022 [cited 2022 May 28];65, Suppl S1:73-82. Available from: https://www.ijpmonline.org/text.asp?2022/65/5/73/345033 |
| Introduction | |  |
Embryonal tumors were previously classified into two broad groups: medulloblastoma and PNET. The relevance of genome-wide studies over the years led to a reclassification of these entities.[1],[2] The application on a large scale of DNA methylation/gene expression profiling led to the identification of new molecular defined entities[3] [Table 1]. Here, we describe the newest molecularly defined types/subtypes of medulloblastoma and other embryonal tumors that will be included in the CNS5. | Table 1: Embryonal Tumors: Comparison between 2016 and fifth WHO classification
Click here to view |
Medulloblastoma
In WHO CNS5, medulloblastomas are classified according to a combination of molecular and histopathological features. The current molecular classification, which reflects the clinico-biological heterogeneity of these neoplasms, is the result of extensive transcriptome and DNA profiling analysis.[4],[5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11],[12],[13],[14],[15],[16],[17],[18],[19],[20],[21],[22],[23],[24] The new classification maintains the original established four principal molecular groups as in 2016 WHO,[7],[25],[26],[27],[28],[29],[30],[31],[32] i.e., wingless-activated (WNT)-activated, sonic hedgehog (SHH)-activated, and non-WNT/non- SHH. SHH tumors are divided, as in WHO 2016, on the basis of TP53 status (TP53- mutant and TP53-wildtype tumors) having very different clinico-pathological and biological characteristics.[26],[33] However, DNA methylation profiling has led to the identification of 12 subgroups. There are four subgroups of SHH medulloblastoma[34] and eight subgroups of non-WNT/non-SHH (group 3 and group 4) medulloblastoma [Table 2].[35] Such further stratification of the molecular subgroups has critical biological and clinical implications regarding prognosis and therapeutic options.[36],[37],[38],[39],[40],[41],[42],[43] This is demonstrated in the subgroup of medulloblastoma arising in very young children with poor prognosis; the standard treatment with chemotherapy is still too high for these young patients,[13],[38] and new trial evidence suggests promising targeted therapies.[44],[45] | Table 2: Clinico-pathological and genetic characteristics of medulloblastoma groups
Click here to view |
Immunohistochemistry can still be used to discriminate between WNT, SHH, and non-WNT/non-SHH medulloblastomas.[46] The WNT-activated group is identified by the nuclear immunoreactivity for beta-catenin, which is expressed in most neoplastic cells; however, some cases can show weak and variable expression. The SHH-activated group is defined by the cytoplasmic immunostaining for GAB1 and YAP1 proteins. Both WNT and SHH medulloblastoma groups show cytoplasmic immunoreactivity for Filamin A. Non-WNT/non-SHH tumors show a cytoplasmic expression for beta-catenin and are immunonegative for GAB1 and YAP1 [Table 2], [Figure 1]. However, DNA methylation profiling is considered the standard method for determining medulloblastoma group or subgroup status.[27],[47] | Figure 1: Anaplastic medulloblastoma, SHH subtype, p53 mutated. (a) H and E. Neoplastic cells show some pleomorphic enlarged bizarre nuclei (20 × magnification). (b) Filamin-A immunostain showing a diffuse cytoplasmic positivity (20 × magnification) (c) Diffuse nuclear expression of p53 (20 ×). (By courtesy of Dr. Cynthia Hawkins, SickKids Hospital, Toronto, Canada)
Click here to view |
WHO CNS5 retains the four histological types listed in the 2016 WHO classification i.e., classic, desmoplastic/nodular, medulloblastoma with ex-tensive nodularity, and large cell/anaplastic[20],[36],[48],[49] [Figure 2], but compared to 2016 WHO, they have been combined into a single chapter named “medulloblastoma, histologically defined” in which the morphological variation as patterns of a single tumor type are described. However, it is acknowledged that there is a correlation between the histological patterns and the molecular subgroup i.e., 1) desmoplastic/nodular medulloblastomas and medulloblastomas with extensive nodularity belong to the SHH molecular group and most are in the SHH-1 and SHH-2 sub-groups; 2) WNT tumors have classic morphology, and 3) most large cell/anaplastic tumors are included in either to the SHH-3 subgroup or to the non-WNT/non-SHH (i.e. group 3/4) subgroup 2.[25],[50] The twelve molecular subgroups are not included in the CNS5. | Figure 2: Different histological types of medulloblastoma (H&E). (a) Classic type (20 ×). (b) Desmoplastic/nodular medulloblastoma (20X). (c) Medulloblastoma with extensive nodularity (10X). (d) Largecell/anaplastic medulloblastoma (40 ×)
Click here to view |
On the basis of such heterogeneity, medulloblastomas have to be classified in a layered and integrated format containing a combination of histopathological and molecular features. However, in the absence and impossibility to perform molecular analyses, the diagnostic pathologist is always given the option to report such tumors using the not otherwise specified (NOS) and not elsewhere classified (NEC) options.[51]
Medulloblastomas can originate in several inherited cancer syndromes[52],[53] such as Gorlin (SUFU and PTCH1 mutations),[54],[55],[56],[57],[58],[59] Li-Fraumeni (TP53 mutations),[60] familial adenomatous polyposis (APC mutations),[61] Rubinstein–Taybi (CREBBP mutations),[62] and Nijmegen (NBN mutations).[63] A new one has been recently identified, which is listed in WHO CNS5, i.e., ELP1-medulloblastoma syndrome. Germ-line mutations of ELP1 gene can be present in 40% among pediatric patients with SHH medulloblastoma TP53 wild-type.[64]
Other CNS embryonal tumors
The other embryonal tumors listed in WHO CNS5 are AT/RT; Embryonal tumor with multlayered rosettes (ETMR); CNS neuroblastoma, FOXR2- activated, and CNS tumor with BCOR internal tandem duplication (ITD). Whereas AT/RT and ETMR were included in previous WHO classifications, CNS neuroblastoma, FOXR2-activated, and CNS tumor with BCOR ITD are new to CNS5. Moreover, cribriform neuroepithelial tumor (CRINET) has been introduced as a provisional entity within this category. As for other CNS tumors, the broad designation CNS embryonal tumor NEC or NOS is included for embryonal tumors that lack molecular features for a more specific diagnosis.
Atypical teratoid/rhabdoid tumor and cribriform neuroepithelial tumor
The definition of AT/RT in WHO CNS5 practically overlaps that of the previous edition: a highly malignant composed of poorly differentiated cells showing focal or diffuse rhabdoid features with polyphenotypic differentiation and genetically defined by biallelic inactivation of SMARCB1 (also known as hSNF5, INI1, or BAF47)[65],[66],[67],[68],[69],[70] or rarely (in <5% of cases) of SMARCA4 (BRG1).[68],[71] In the majority of the cases, the diagnosis of these tumors still relies on the histology and immunohistochemistry showing the typical differentiation along neuroepithelial, epithelial, and mesenchymal lines and, most important, loss of expression of SMARCB1 (INI1) [Figure 3] or SMARCA4 (BRG1) in the rare cases with such mutation. | Figure 3: ATRT. (a) H and E. Neoplasticrhabdoidcells display a perivascular arrangement (20 ×). (b) The tumorhas medium-sized, round cells with distinct borders, eccentric nuclei, and prominent nucleoli (H and E) (40 ×). (c) INI1 immunostainshowing positive endothelial and reactivecells. Tumorcells are negative for INI1 protein (20X)
Click here to view |
The most important change in CNS5 is the identification of three molecular sub-groups defined by DNA methylation and/or gene expression profiling. These three molecular subgroups are named AT/RT-TYR, AT/RT-SHH, and AT/RT-MYC. Each subgroup delineates different groups of patients in terms of age, site of origin, and SMARCB1/chromosome 22 alteration pattern [Table 3].[72],[73] | Table 3: Clinico-pathological and genetic characteristics of AT/RT molecular subgroups
Click here to view |
AT/RT-SHH tumors (~44%) exhibit an overexpression of proteins involved in the pathways of SHH and Notch signaling. The median age of patients is 20 months and in 67% of cases, they arise in the supratentorial compartment. Compound heterozygous SMARCB1 point mutations are frequently seen in this group.[74]
AT/RT-TYR tumors (~34%) are characterized by an upregulation of proteins involved in the melanosomal pathway (tyrosinase), the bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) pathway, and development-related transcription factors, including OTX2. These tumors occur in very young patients (median age: ~12 months) and are localized mainly in the infratentorial compartment. Loss of SMARCB1 gene is mostly generated by the mutation in one allele and a complete or partial loss of chromosome 22, removes the second allele[74]
AT/RT-MYC tumors (~22%) are characterized by the expression of the MYC oncogene and HOX cluster genes. This group, compared to AT/RT-SHH or AT/RT-TYR groups, affects older patients (median age: ~27 months).[74] They are more commonly supratentorial, rarely they can occur in the spinal cord. The rare AT/RTs occurring in adults are confined in the sellar region and also belong to this group.[75] Potential immunohistochemical surrogate markers for identification of AT/RT-SHH and AT/RT-TYR subgroups are antibodies against ASCL1 and tyrosinase, respectively.[72],[76] Moreover, a recent study has found a significant correlation between histological patterns and molecular subgroups.[77]
SMARCB1- deficient AT/RT can occur in the setting of the rhabdoid tumor predisposition syndrome 1 with a frequency between 26% and 41%, whereas the risk of rhabdoid tumor predisposition syndrome 2 in a patient with a SMARCA4-deficient tumor is substantially higher.
In WHO CNS5, cribriform neuroepithelial tumor is a provisional entity distinct from AT/RT and defined as “a nonrhabdoid neuroectodermal tumor characterized by cribriform strands and ribbons and showing loss of nuclear SMARCB1 expression.” This is a remarkably rare neoplasm occurring mostly in the periventricular areas (lateral, third, and fourth ventricles) in infants (mean age 20 months). Histologically, these are composed of strands and ribbons conferring a cribriform pattern of nonrhabdoid cells with strong positivity for EMA and loss of SMARCB1 expression. In terms of DNA methylation profiling, the tumor clusters within the AT/RT molecular subtype AT/RT-TYR. There are only a small number of reported cases which thus does not permit to delineate the biological behavior of this lesion. However, small retrospective series have shown significantly longer survival compared to standard AT/RT-TYR cases.
Embryonal tumor with multilayered rosettes
The term “embryonal tumor with multilayered rosettes (ETMR)” has been introduced as a unifying diagnosis for tumors with diverse histological designations such as ependymoblastoma, embryonal tumor with abundant neuropil and true rosettes (ETANTR), and medulloepithelioma all characterized by a molecular hallmark i.e., the amplification of the microRNA cluster on chromosome 19 (C19MC) present in ~90% of the ETMR cases.[78],[79] For this reason, in WHO 2016, the entity was designated as “Embryonal tumor with multilayered rosettes C19MC-altered.” The discovery that tumors lacking the C19MC amplification frequently harbor biallelic DICER1 mutations, of which the first hit is generally present in the germline of the patients, led to the removal of the term “C19MC-altered” in the nomenclature of this entity in WHO CNS5.
ETMRs more frequently occur in the cerebral hemispheres but they can also develop in the infratentorial compartment involving the cerebellum and brainstem.[80],[81],[82],[83] The histological feature of these tumors includes embryonal cells organized in a pseudostratified epithelium around a central area of neuropil containing a lumen to form multilayered mitotically active rosettes [Figure 4]a. The three main histological patterns comprise: embryonal tumor with abundant neuropil and true rosettes (ETANTR), ependymoblastoma, and medulloepithelioma. These three histological patterns, based on DNA methylation profile and gene expression, cluster in the same group, reflecting a different morphological range of the same tumor entity. ETMR with embryonal tumor with abundant neuropil and true rosettes (ETANTR) histology shows a biphasic architecture including more compact areas with hyperchromatic nuclei and scant eosinophilic cytoplasm arranged in a sheet-like pattern along with wide neuropil-like areas with scattered neoplastic neurocytic and ganglion cells. In dense areas, multilayered rosettes are more frequently found. ETMRs with ependymoblastoma histology show large sheets of poorly differentiated rosettes and low neuropil content. ETMR with medulloepithelioma pattern has different patterns including papillary, tubular, or trabecular structures appearing like the primitive neural tube, constituted by neoplastic pseudostratified neuroepithelium with an external [Periodic acid–Schiff (PAS)-positive] limiting membrane. Different differentiation patterns like epithelial, myeloid, osteoid, myoid, or other mesenchymal differentiation, including even melanin pigmented cells can be identified. | Figure 4: ETMR. (a) H and E. Neoplastic cells with hyperchromatic nuclei. Multilayeredrosettes (arrows) are identified. (20 ×). (b) Immunohistochemistry for LIN28 showing strong cytoplasmic stain (20 ×). (c) FISH shows amplification at 19q13.42 (green signals). (d) Copy number variation analysis with C19MC amplification (arrow)
Click here to view |
All three histological patterns show a strong and diffuse cytoplasmic immunoreactivity for LIN28A. Such expression can also be observed in some glial, neoplasms, atypical teratoid rhabdoid tumor (AT-RTs), germ cell tumors, and some non-CNS neoplasms.[84],[85] However, within the appropriate histological setting, LIN28A is a very useful marker for the diagnosis of ETMR [Figure 4]b confirmatory diagnosis which requires the molecular detection of C19MC amplification or DICER1 mutations.
C19MC microRNA cluster alteration at 19q13.42 has been found only in ETMRs and occurs in approximately 90% of cases[86],[87] [Figure 4]c. These are usually focal amplifications, but fusions can also occur, generally with TTYH1. C19MC alterations can be easily detected by array-based copy-number profiling [Figure 4]d or interphase fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). The absence of C19MC alteration in ETMR suggests the presence of DICER1 mutations. Such mutations are observed only in the 5% of C19MC negative ETMR and almost all of these cases are in the setting of a DICER1 genetic tumor syndrome. Rare ETMRs without a C19MC alteration or DICER1 mutation should be classified as ETMR NEC. Despite intensive multimodal treatment, the survival rates for ETMR remain very poor.
CNS neuroblastoma, FOXR2-activated
CNS neuroblastoma, FOXR2 activated (CNS NB-FOXR2), is a new entry in WHO CNS5. Its discovery originates from the re-evaluation by DNA methylation analysis of a previous CNS-PNET cohort in which many tumors could be included in specific entities. Additionally, four new entities were delineated based on specific DNA methylation profiles and genetic alterations.[1],[88] One of these new entities showed morphological similarity with CNS neuroblastoma and harbored chromosomal rearrangements leading to an increased expression of the forkhead box R2 (FOXR2) gene.
CNS NB-FOXR2 histologically displays embryonal architecture composed of densely packed undifferentiated embryonal cells with hyperchromatic nuclei and inconspicuous cytoplasm arranged in a sheet-like pattern. Vascular pseudorosettes and Homer-Wright rosettes may be encountered. Mitotic Figures and apoptotic bodies are abundant/frequent. Areas of necrosis are commonly present. Some cases show focal neurocytic differentiation and a collection of mature ganglion cells (“ganglioneuroblastoma”). Most of these tumors disclose a strong immunopositivity for OLIG2, whereas GFAP and vimentin are not expressed. Areas with neurocytic/ganglionic differentiation show positivity for synaptophysin [Figure 5]a, [Figure 5]b, [Figure 5]c. Overexpression of TTF-1 is also present in most tumors. | Figure 5: CNS neuroblastoma, FOXR2-activated. (a) H and E. Neoplasticcells with small, round nuclei surrounded by a clear halo (40 ×). (b) Synaptophysin immunoexpression (10 ×). (c) Olig2 immunoexpression (10 ×). (d) Copy number variation. Gain of chromosome 1q (arrow) and focal or total loss of 16q (star)
Click here to view |
The detection of FOXR2 rearrangements necessitates next-generation sequencing method, however alterations affecting the FOXR2 locus on chromosome Xp11.21 may be visible by copy-number analysis [Figure 5]d. Nevertheless, the presence of a distinct cluster that includes CNS NB-FOXR2 by DNA methylation profiling, highly facilitates the diagnosis of these tumors. In contrast to ETMR, patients with CNS NB-FOXR2 present at an older age, have exclusively supratentorial tumors, and show higher response as well as superior survival rates.[89]
CNS tumor with BCOR internal tandem duplication (ITD)
The inclusion in WHO CNS5 of CNS tumors with BCOR ITD as embryonal tumors, maybe provisional, in view of the fact that these neoplasms are not definitively neuroectodermal. Exon 15 BCOR ITDs have been reported in several histologically similar sarcomas, and therefore there is no consensus as to whether these tumors should be considered neuroepithelial or mesenchymal neoplasms.
They occur mainly in young patients with an age ranging from 0 to 22 years and are usually located in the cerebral or cerebellar hemispheres. They are generally composed of uniform oval or spindleshaped cells, with round or oval nuclei showing a delicate chromatin pattern. Glioma-like fibrillary areas can be present as well as others with compact fascicular patterns frequently associated with a branching capillary network. The formation of ependymomalike perivascular pseudorosettes is quite characteristic, and myxoid or microcystic areas are often encountered. Palisading necrosis is commonly observed. Mitoses are frequent. For such protean histology, the differential diagnosis includes high-grade gliomas, ependymomas, and embryonal tumors. By immunohistochemistry, the constant expression of vimentin and CD56 associated with negativity or scarce expression of OLIG2, GFAP, or S100 support the diagnosis [Figure 6].[88] Widespread strong nuclear expression of BCOR is a sensitive marker, but it is not specific because it may also occur in other tumors, such as astroblastomas[90] or solitary fibrous tumors.[91] | Figure 6: CNS tumor with BCOR internal tandem duplication (ITD). (a) H and E. Tumor cells show an oligo-like aspect with monotonous round to oval nuclei, fine chromatin, and indistinct nucleoli. Evident some microcystic formation (40 ×). (b) Nuclear BCOR immunostaining (10 ×). (c) Diffuse immunopositivity for vimentin (10 ×)
Click here to view |
The definitive diagnosis relies on the molecular detection of a heterozygous ITD in exon 15 of the BCOR gene. As for other embryonal tumors, DNA methylation and gene expression profiles are reliable methods to identify CNS tumors with BCOR ITD from other CNS tumors.[1] Although the clinical data are limited due to the rarity, the overall survival of the patients harboring these tumors is poor.[90]
CNS embryonal tumor NOS
With this term, WHO CNS5 defines a CNS tumor with embryonal histology and immunophenotype in which no alteration that would classify it as one of the molecularly defined CNS embryonal tumors can be detected or cases that, for any reason, are not susceptible to analysis.
| Conclusions | | |
All the classification systems have to be considered a work in progress, whichprovide both great opportunities in terms of research and therapeutic challenges. CNS5 exemplifies the concept that today the pathological diagnosis of CNS embryonal tumors is the result of a complex integration of histology, immunohistochemistry, and molecular features, and such diagnosis represents the basis for clinical decision making.
For nonmedulloblastoma tumors, a useful approach could be to start using three simple antibodies (synaptophysin, vimentin, and Olig2). They can give initial information and subsequent suggestions for the next more appropriate testing. So, for example, in the context of a morphologic embryonal neoplasm, the expression of Olig2 and synaptophysin should lead to the suspicion of of a CNS NB-FOXR2. In this case, the next step should be the molecular documentation of the FOXR2 rearrangement. Tumors presenting with undifferentiated small neoplastic cells and multilayered rosettes showing immunopositivity for synaptophysin, Olig2 and vimentin are suggestive of ETMR. In this case, the immunohistochemical analysis for LIN28 should be performed; in the case of positive expression, the molecular test (sequencing or FISH test) is mandatory to confirm the presence of C19MC alteration. In the case of positivity for vimentinor, a combination of vimentin and Olig2 in the context of a poorly differentiated neoplasm, immunostaining for BCOR can be useful, even though this antibody is not specific and can be expressed by other nonembryonal tumors. Furthermore, in this case, molecular analysis for the detection of BCOR ITD is required. In the case of a neoplasm with rhabdoid morphology and a polyphenotypic differentiation, the expression of vimentin alone or in combination with synaptophysin and Olig2 can suggest a diagnosis of AT/RT. In this last case, the loss of INI1 or BRG1 protein supports the diagnosis of AT/RT [Figure 7]. | Figure 7: Diagnostic algorithm for approaching diagnosis of non-medulloblastoma embryonal tumors, including the integration of immunohistochemical and molecular analysis
Click here to view |
For medulloblastoma, WHO CNS5 highlights the clinical and biological heterogeneity of this neoplasm. The integration of molecular information is an essential component of the classification although it raises some controversies and challenges. On one hand, the discovery of numerous molecular subgroups opens the possibility to the development of more specific target therapies, however, clinical trials on a small group of patients would not provide significant results. Also treating uniformly tumors harboring different molecular alterations would lead to the loss of critical therapeutic implications. So far, treatment for non medulloblastoma embryonal tumors remains the removal surgery followed by further additional treatments when required like craniospinal radiation as well as chemotherapy and eventually most effective molecular-targeted therapies.[92] However, the increasing number of molecularly defined tumors included in a specific entity represents the basis to develop precise treatments for these children.
Financial support and sponsorship
Nil.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
| References | | |
| 1. | Sturm D, Orr BA, Toprak UH, Hovestadt V, Jones DTW, Capper D, et al. New Brain tumor entities emerge from molecular classification of CNS-PNETs. Cell 2016;164:1060-72.  |
| 2. | Louis DN, Perry A, Burger P, Ellison DW, Reifenberger G, von Deimling A, et al. International society of neuropathology--Haarlem consensus guidelines for nervous system tumor classification and grading. Brain Pathol 2014;24:429-35. |
| 3. | Capper D, Jones DTW, Sill M, Hovestadt V, Schrimpf D, Sturm D, et al. DNA methylation-based classification of central nervous system tumours. Nature 2018;555:469-74. |
| 4. | Kool M, Korshunov A, Remke M, Jones DT, Schlanstein M, Northcott PA, et al. Molecular subgroups of medulloblastoma: An international meta-analysis of transcriptome, genetic aberrations, and clinical data of WNT, SHH, Group 3, and Group 4 medulloblastomas. Acta Neuropathol 2012;123:473-84. |
| 5. | Scheurlen WG, Schwabe GC, Joos S, Mollenhauer J, Sörensen N, Kühl J. Molecular analysis of childhood primitive neuroectodermal tumors defines markers associated with poor outcome J Clin Oncol 1998;16:2478-85. |
| 6. | Ellison DW, Kocak M, Dalton J, Megahed H, Lusher ME, Ryan SL, et al. Definition of disease-risk stratification groups in childhood medulloblastoma using combined clinical, pathologic, and molecular variables. J Clin Oncol 2011;29:1400-7. |
| 7. | Gibson P, Tong Y, Robinson G, Thompson MC, Currle DS, Eden C, et al. Subtypes of medulloblastoma have distinct developmental origins. Nature 2010;468:1095-9. |
| 8. | Northcott PA, Jones DTW, Kool M, Robinson GW, Gilbertson RJ, Cho YJ, et al. Medulloblastomics: The end of the beginning. Nat Rev Cancer 2012;12:818-34. |
| 9. | Northcott PA, Buchhalter I, Morrissy AS, Hovestadt V, Weischenfeldt J, Ehrenberger T, et al. The whole-genome landscape of medulloblastoma subtypes. Nature 2017;547:311-7. |
| 10. | Northcott PA, Robinson GW, Kratz CP, Mabbott DJ, Pomeroy SL, Clifford SC, et al. Medulloblastoma. Nat Rev Dis Prim 2019;5:11. |
| 11. | Jessa S, Blanchet-Cohen A, Krug B, Vladoiu M, Coutelier M, Faury D, et al. Stalled developmental programs at the root of pediatric brain tumors. Nat Genet 2019;51:1702-113. |
| 12. | Kumar R, Liu APY, Northcott PA. Medulloblastoma genomics in the modern molecular era. Brain Pathol 2020;30:679-90. |
| 13. | Hovestadt V, Ayrault O, Swartling FJ, Robinson GW, Pfister SM, Northcott PA. Medulloblastomics revisited: Biological and clinical insights from thousands of patients. Nat Rev Cancer 2020;20:42-56. |
| 14. | Vladoiu, MC, El-Hamamy I, Donovan, LK, Farooq H, Holgado BL, Sundaravadanam Y, et al. Childhood cerebellar tumours mirror conserved fetal transcriptional programs. Nature 2019;15;572:67-73. |
| 15. | Korshunov A, Okonechnikov K, Sahm F, Ryzhova M, Stichel D, Schrimpf D, et al. Transcriptional profiling of medulloblastoma with extensive nodularity (MBEN) reveals two clinically relevant tumor subsets with VSNL1 as potent prognostic marker. Acta Neuropathol 2020;139:583-96. |
| 16. | Eberhart CG, Kepner JL, Goldthwaite PT, Kun LE, Duffner PK, Friedman HS, et al. Histopathologic grading of medulloblastomas: A pediatric oncology group study. Cancer 2002;94:552-60. |
| 17. | Ellison DW. Mini-symposium in medulloblastoma genomics in the modern molecular era. Brain Pathol 2020;30:661-3. |
| 18. | McManamy CS, Lamont JM, Taylor RE, Cole M, Pearson ADJ, Clifford SC, et al. Morphophenotypic variation predicts clinical behavior in childhood non-desmoplastic medulloblastomas. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol 2003;62:627-32. |
| 19. | Eberhart CG, Kratz J, Wang Y, Summers K, Stearns D, Cohen K, et al. Histopathological and molecular prognostic markers in medulloblastoma: c-myc, N-myc, TrkC, and anaplasia. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol 2004;63:441-9. |
| 20. | McManamy CS, Pears J, Weston CL, Hanzely Z, Ironside JW, Taylor RE, et al. Nodule formation and desmoplasia in medulloblastomas - Defining the nodular/desmoplastic variant and its biological behavior. Brain Pathol 2007;17:151-64. |
| 21. | Northcott PA, Nakahara Y, Wu X, Feuk L, Ellison DW, Croul S, et al. Multiple recurrent genetic events converge on control of histone lysine methylation in medulloblastoma. Nat Genet 2009;41:465-72. |
| 22. | Phillips CL, Miles L, Jones BV, Sutton M, Crone K, Fouladi M. Medulloblastoma with melanotic differentiation: Case report and review of the literature. J Neurooncol 2011;103:759-64. |
| 23. | Korshunov A, Remke M, Werft W, Benner A, Ryzhova M, Witt H, et al. Adult and pediatric medulloblastomas are genetically distinct and require different algorithms for molecular risk stratification. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:3054-60. |
| 24. | Ellison DW. Childhood medulloblastoma: Novel approaches to the classification of a heterogeneous disease. Acta Neuropathol 2010;120:305-16. |
| 25. | Ellison DW, Dalton J, Kocak M, Nicholson SL, Fraga C, Neale G, et al. Medulloblastoma: Clinicopathological correlates of SHH, WNT, and non-SHH/WNT molecular subgroups. Acta Neuropathol 2011;121:381-96. |
| 26. | Taylor MD, Northcott PA, Korshunov A, Remke M, Cho YJ, Clifford SC, et al. Molecular subgroups of medulloblastoma: The current consensus. Acta Neuropathol 2012;123:465-72. |
| 27. | Schwalbe EC, Lindsey JC, Nakjang S, Crosier S, Smith AJ, Hicks D, et al. Novel molecular subgroups for clinical classification and outcome prediction in childhood medulloblastoma: A cohort study. Lancet Oncol 2017;18:958-71. |
| 28. | Ramaswamy V, Remke M, Bouffet E, Faria CC, Perreault S, Cho YJ, et al. Recurrence patterns across medulloblastoma subgroups: An integrated clinical and molecular analysis. Lancet Oncol 2013;14:1200-7. |
| 29. | Shih DJ, Northcott PA, Remke M, Korshunov A, Ramaswamy V, Kool M, et al. Cytogenetic prognostication within medulloblastoma subgroups. J Clin Oncol 2014;32:886-96. |
| 30. | Wefers AK, Warmuth-Metz M, Pöschl J, von Bueren AO, Monoranu CM, Seelos K, et al. Subgroup-specific localization of human medulloblastoma based on pre-operative MRI. Acta Neuropathol 2014;127:931-3. |
| 31. | Zhao F, Li C, Zhou Q, Qu P, Wang B, Wang X, et al. Distinctive localization and MRI features correlate of molecular subgroups in adult medulloblastoma. J Neurooncol 2017;135:353-60. |
| 32. | Korshunov A, Okonechnikov K, Sahm F, Ryzhova M, Stichel D, Sievers P, et al. Molecular progression of SHH-activated medulloblastomas. Acta Neuropathol 2019;138:327-30. |
| 33. | Zhukova N, Ramaswamy V, Remke M, Pfaff E, Shih DJ, Martin DC, et al. Subgroup-specific prognostic implications of TP53 mutation in medulloblastoma. J Clin Oncol 2013;31:2927-35. |
| 34. | Cavalli FMG, Remke M, Rampasek L, Peacock J, Shih DJH, Luu B, et al. Intertumoral heterogeneity within medulloblastoma subgroups. Cancer Cell 2017;31:737-54. |
| 35. | Sharma T, Schwalbe EC, Williamson D, Sill M, Hovestadt V, Mynarek M, et al. Second-generation molecular subgrouping of medulloblastoma: An international meta-analysis of Group 3 and Group 4 subtypes. Acta Neuropathol 2019;138:309-26. |
| 36. | Massimino M, Antonelli M, Gandola L, Miceli R, Pollo B, Biassoni V, et al. Histological variants of medulloblastoma are the most powerful clinical prognostic indicators. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2013;60:210-6. |
| 37. | Merchant TE, Pollack IF, Loeffler JS. Brain tumors across the age spectrum: Biology, therapy, and late effects. Semin Radiat Oncol 2010;20:58-66. |
| 38. | Robinson GW, Rudneva VA, Buchhalter I, Billups CA, Waszak SM, Smith KS, et al. Risk-adapted therapy for young children with medulloblastoma (SJYC07): Therapeutic and molecular outcomes from a multicentre, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol 2018;19:768-84. |
| 39. | Rutkowski S, von Hoff K, Emser A, Zwiener I, Pietsch T, Figarella-Branger D, et al. Survival and prognostic factors of early childhood medulloblastoma: An international meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:4961-8. |
| 40. | Rutkowski S, Bode U, Deinlein F, Ottensmeier H, Warmuth-Metz M, Soerensen N, et al. Treatment of early childhood medulloblastoma by postoperative chemotherapy alone. N Engl J Med 2005;352:978-86. |
| 41. | Kool M, Jones DT, Jäger N, Northcott PA, Pugh TJ, Hovestadt V, et al. Genome sequencing of SHH medulloblastoma predicts genotype-related response to smoothened inhibition. Cancer Cell 2014;25:393-405. |
| 42. | AbdelBaki MS, Boué DR, Finlay JL, Kieran MW. Desmoplastic nodular medulloblastoma in young children: A management dilemma. Neuro Oncol 2018;20:1026-33. |
| 43. | Goschzik T, Schwalbe EC, Hicks D, Smith A, ZurMuehlen A, Figarella-Branger D, et al. Prognostic effect of whole chromosomal aberration signatures in standard-risk, non-WNT/non-SHH medulloblastoma: A retrospective, molecular analysis of the HIT-SIOP PNET 4 trial. Lancet Oncol 2018;19:1602-16. |
| 44. | Mynarek M, von Hoff K, Pietsch T, Ottensmeier H, Warmuth-Metz M, Bison B, et al. Nonmetastatic medulloblastoma of early childhood: Results from the prospective clinical trial hit-2000 and an extended validation cohort. J Clin Oncol 2020;38:2028-40. |
| 45. | Robinson GW, Gajjar A. Genomics paves the way for better infant medulloblastoma therapy. J Clin Oncol 2020;38:2010-3. |
| 46. | Sachdeva MU, Vankalakunti M, Rangan A, Radotra BD, Chhabra R, Vasishta RK. The role of immunohistochemistry in medullomyoblastoma--A case series highlighting divergent differentiation. Diagn Pathol 2008;3:18. |
| 47. | Pietsch T, Haberler C. Update on the integrated histopathological and genetic classification of medulloblastoma - A practical diagnostic guideline. Clin Neuropathol 2016;35:344-52. |
| 48. | Giangaspero F, Rigobello L, Badiali M, Loda M, Andreini L, Basso G, et al. Large-cell medulloblastomas: A distinct variant with highly aggressive behavior. Am J Surg Pathol 1992;16:687-93. |
| 49. | Giangaspero F, Chieco P, Ceccarelli C, Lisignoli G, Pozzuoli R, Gambacorta M, et al. “Desmoplastic” versus “classic” medulloblastoma: Comparison of DNA content, histopathology and differentiation. Virchows Arch A Pathol Anat Histopathol 1991;418:207-14. |
| 50. | Teo WY, Shen J, Su JM, Yu A, Wang J, Chow WY, et al. Implications of tumor location on subtypes of medulloblastoma. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2013;60:1408–10. |
| 51. | Louis DN, Wesseling P, Paulus W, Giannini C, Batchelor TT, Cairncross JG, et al. cIMPACT-NOW update 1: Not Otherwise Specified (NOS) and Not Elsewhere Classified (NEC). Acta Neuropathol 2018;135:481-4. |
| 52. | Waszak SM, Northcott PA, Buchhalter I, Robinson GW, Sutter C, Groebner S, et al. Spectrum and prevalence of genetic predisposition in medulloblastoma: A retrospective genetic study and prospective validation in a clinical trial cohort. Lancet Oncol 2018;19:785-98. |
| 53. | Begemann M, Waszak SM, Robinson GW, Jäger N, Sharma T, Knopp C, et al. Germline GPR161 mutations predispose to pediatric medulloblastoma. J Clin Oncol 2020;38:43–50. |
| 54. | Garrè ML, Cama A, Bagnasco F, Morana G, Giangaspero F, Brisigotti M, et al. Medulloblastoma variants: Age-dependent occurrence and relation to Gorlin syndrome--A new clinical perspective. Clin Cancer Res 2009;15:2463-71. |
| 55. | Huq AJ, Walsh M, Rajagopalan B, Finlay M, Trainer AH, Bonnet F, et al. Mutations in SUFU and PTCH1 genes may cause different cutaneous cancer predisposition syndromes: Similar, but not the same. Fam Cancer 2018;17:601-6. |
| 56. | Brugières L, Remenieras A, Pierron G, Varlet P, Forget S, Byrde V, et al. High frequency of germline SUFU mutations in children with desmoplastic/nodular medulloblastoma younger than 3 years of age. J Clin Oncol 2012;30:2087-93. |
| 57. | Guerrini-Rousseau L, Dufour C, Varlet P, Masliah-Planchon J, Bourdeaut F, Guillaud-Bataille M, et al. Germline SUFU mutation carriers and medulloblastoma: Clinical characteristics, cancer risk, and prognosis. Neuro Oncol 2018;20:1122-32. |
| 58. | Pietsch T, Waha A, Koch A, Kraus J, Albrecht S, Tonn J, et al. Medulloblastomas of the desmoplastic variant carry mutations of the human homologue of Drosophila patched. Cancer Res 1997;57:2085-8. |
| 59. | Amlashi SF, Riffaud L, Brassier G, Morandi X. Nevoid basal cell carcinoma syndrome: Relation with desmoplastic medulloblastoma in infancy. A population-based study and review of the literature. Cancer 2003;98:618-24. |
| 60. | Orr BA, Clay MR, Pinto EM, Kesserwan C. An update on the central nervous system manifestations of Li–Fraumeni syndrome. Acta Neuropathol 2020;139:669-87. |
| 61. | Kim B, Tabori U, Hawkins C. An update on the CNS manifestations of brain tumor polyposis syndromes. Acta Neuropathol 2020;139:703-15. |
| 62. | Bourdeaut F, Miquel C, Richer W, Grill J, Zerah M, Grison C, et al. Rubinstein-Taybi syndrome predisposing to non-WNT, non-SHH, group 3 medulloblastoma. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2014;61:383-6. |
| 63. | Huang J, Grotzer MA, Watanabe T, Hewer E, Pietsch T, Rutkowski S, et al. Mutations in the Nijmegen breakage syndrome gene in medulloblastomas. Clin Cancer Res 2008;14:4053-8. |
| 64. | Waszak SM, Robinson GW, Gudenas BL, Smith KS, Forget A, Kojic M, et al. Germline elongator mutations in Sonic Hedgehog medulloblastoma. Nature 2020;580:396-401. |
| 65. | Sévenet N, Sheridan E, Amram D, Schneider P, Handgretinger R, Delattre O. Constitutional mutations of the hSNF5/INI1 gene predispose to a variety of cancers. Am J Hum Genet 1999;65:1342-8. |
| 66. | Janson K, Nedzi LA, David O, Schorin M, Walsh JW, Bhattacharjee M, et al. Predisposition to atypical teratoid/rhabdoid tumor due to an inherited INI1 mutation. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2006;47:279-84. |
| 67. | Biegel JA. Molecular genetics of atypical teratoid/rhabdoid tumor. Neurosurg Focus 2006;20:E11. |
| 68. | Schneppenheim R, Frühwald MC, Gesk S, Hasselblatt M, Jeibmann A, Kordes U, et al. Germline nonsense mutation and somatic inactivation of SMARCA4/BRG1 in a family with rhabdoid tumor predisposition syndrome. Am J Hum Genet 2010;86:279-84. |
| 69. | Eaton KW, Tooke LS, Wainwright LM, Judkins AR, Biegel JA. Spectrum of SMARCB1/INI1 mutations in familial and sporadic rhabdoid tumors. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2011;56:7-15. |
| 70. | Lee RS, Stewart C, Carter SL, Ambrogio L, Cibulskis K, Sougnez C, et al. A remarkably simple genome underlies highly malignant pediatric rhabdoid cancers. J Clin Invest 2012;122:2983-8. |
| 71. | Hasselblatt M, Nagel I, Oyen F, Bartelheim K, Russell RB, Schüller U, et al. SMARCA4-mutated atypical teratoid/rhabdoid tumors are associated with inherited germline alterations and poor prognosis. Acta Neuropathol 2014;128:453-6. |
| 72. | Johann PD, Erkek S, Zapatka M, Kerl K, Buchhalter I, Hovestadt V, et al. Atypical teratoid/rhabdoid tumors are comprised of three epigenetic subgroups with distinct enhancer landscapes. Cancer Cell 2016;29:379-93. |
| 73. | Frühwald MC, Hasselblatt M, Nemes K, Bens S, Steinbügl M, Johann PD, et al. Age and DNA methylation subgroup as potential independent risk factors for treatment stratification in children with atypical teratoid/rhabdoid tumors. Neuro Oncol 2020;22:1006-17. |
| 74. | Ho B, Johann PD, Grabovska Y, De Dieu Andrianteranagna MJ, Yao F, Frühwald MF, et al. Molecular subgrouping of atypical teratoid/rhabdoid tumors-A reinvestigation and current consensus. Neuro Oncol 2020;22:613-24. |
| 75. | Liu F, Fan S, Tang X, Fan S, Zhou L. Adult sellar region atypical Teratoid/Rhabdoid tumor: A retrospective study and literature review. Front Neurol 2020;11:604612. |
| 76. | Torchia J, Picard D, Lafay-Cousin L, Hawkins CE, Kim SK, Letourneau, et al. Molecular subgroups of atypical teratoid rhabdoid tumours in children: An integrated genomic and clinicopathological analysis. Lancet Oncol 2015;16:569-82. |
| 77. | Zin F, Cotter JA, Haberler C, Dottermusch M, Neumann J, Schüller U, et al. Histopathological patterns in atypical teratoid/rhabdoid tumors are related to molecular subgroup. Brain Pathol 2021;31:e12967. |
| 78. | Kleinman CL, Gerges N, Papillon-Cavanagh S, Sin-Chan P, Pramatarova A, Quang DA, et al. Fusion of TTYH1 with the C19MC microRNA cluster drives expression of a brain-specific DNMT3B isoform in the embryonal brain tumor ETMR. Nat Genet 2014;46:39-44. |
| 79. | Lambo S, Gröbner SN, Rausch T, Waszak SM, Schmidt C, Gorthi A, et al. The molecular landscape of ETMR at diagnosis and relapse. Nature 2019;576:274-80. |
| 80. | Gessi M, Giangaspero F, Lauriola L, Gardiman M, Scheithauer BW, Halliday W, et al. Embryonal tumors with abundant neuropil and true rosettes: A distinctive CNS primitive neuroectodermal tumor. Am J Surg Pathol 2009;33:211-7. |
| 81. | Korshunov A, Sturm D, Ryzhova M, Hovestadt V, Gessi M, Jones DT, et al. Embryonal tumor with abundant neuropil and true rosettes (ETANTR), ependymoblastoma, and medulloepithelioma share molecular similarity and comprise a single clinicopathological entity. Acta Neuropathol 2014;128:279-89. |
| 82. | Jakobiec FA, Kool M, Stagner AM, Pfister SM, Eagle RC, Proia AD, et al. Intraocular medulloepitheliomas and embryonal tumors with multilayered rosettes of the brain: Comparative roles of LIN28A and C19MC. Am J Ophthalmol 2015;159:1065-74. |
| 83. | Korshunov A, Jakobiec FA, Eberhart CG, Hovestadt V, Capper D, Jones DT, et al. Comparative integrated molecular analysis of intraocular medulloepitheliomas and central nervous system embryonal tumors with multilayered rosettes confirms that they are distinct nosologic entities. Neuropathology 2015;35:538-44. |
| 84. | Spence T, Sin-Chan P, Picard D, Barszczyk M, Hoss K, Lu M, et al. CNS-PNETs with C19MC amplification and/or LIN28 expression comprise a distinct histogenetic diagnostic and therapeutic entity. Acta Neuropathol 2014;128:291-303. |
| 85. | Weingart MF, Roth JJ, Hutt-Cabezas M, Busse TM, Kaur H, Price A, et al. Disrupting LIN28 in atypical teratoid rhabdoid tumors reveals the importance of the mitogen activated protein kinase pathway as a therapeutic target. Oncotarget 2015;6:3165-77. |
| 86. | Korshunov A, Remke M, Gessi M, Ryzhova M, Hielscher T, Witt H, et al. Focal genomic amplification at 19q13.42 comprises a powerful diagnostic marker for embryonal tumors with ependymoblastic rosettes. Acta Neuropathol 2010;120:253-60. |
| 87. | Li M, Lee KF, Lu Y, Clarke I, Shih D, Eberhart C, et al. Frequent amplification of a chr19q13.41 microRNA polycistron in aggressive primitive neuroectodermal brain tumors. Cancer Cell 2009;16:533-46. |
| 88. | Louis DN, Wesseling P, Aldape K, Brat DJ, Capper D, Cree IA, et al. cIMPACT-NOW update 6: New entity and diagnostic principle recommendations of the cIMPACT-Utrecht meeting on future CNS tumor classification and grading. Brain Pathol 2020;30:844-56. |
| 89. | von Hoff K, Haberler C, Schmitt-Hoffner F, Schepke E, de Rojas T, Jacobs S, et al. Therapeutic implications of improved molecular diagnostics for rare CNS embryonal tumor entities: Results of an international, retrospective study. Neuro Oncol 2021;23:1597-611. |
| 90. | Ferris SP, Velazquez Vega J, Aboian M, Lee JC, Van Ziffle J, Onodera C, et al. High-grade neuroepithelial tumor with BCOR exon 15 internal tandem duplication-A comprehensive clinical, radiographic, pathologic, and genomic analysis. Brain Pathol 2020;30:46-62. |
| 91. | Kao YC, Sung YS, Zhang L, Huang SC, Argani P, Chung CT, et al. Recurrent BCOR internal tandem duplication and YWHAE-NUTM2B fusions in soft tissue undifferentiated round cell sarcoma of infancy: Overlapping genetic features with clear cell sarcoma of kidney. Am J Surg Pathol 2016;40:1009-20. |
| 92. | Wen PY, Packer RJ. The 2021 WHO Classification of tumors of the central nervous system: Clinical implications. Neuro Oncol 2021;23:1215-7. |
Correspondence Address:
Felice Giangaspero
Viale Regina Elena 326, 00161 Rome
Italy
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/ijpm.ijpm_1049_21
[Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4], [Figure 5], [Figure 6], [Figure 7]
[Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3] |
