Premium
Hemangiopericytoma with chromosomal aberrations on chromosomes 8 and 10: Evidence for a distict brain tumor entity
Author(s) -
Schober Ralf,
Ahnert Peter,
Krupp Wolfgang,
Holland Heidrun,
Ogunlade Vera,
Livrea Michela,
Meixensberger Jürgen
Publication year - 2009
Publication title -
the faseb journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.709
H-Index - 277
eISSN - 1530-6860
pISSN - 0892-6638
DOI - 10.1096/fasebj.23.1_supplement.38.4
Subject(s) - hemangiopericytoma , uniparental disomy , biology , pathology , fluorescence in situ hybridization , meningioma , brain tumor , karyotype , immunohistochemistry , cytogenetics , chromosome , medicine , genetics , gene
Hemangiopericytoma is not universally recognized as a tumor entity, and there is a trend to reassign it piecemeal to other tumor categories. However, it has been included in the new WHO classification of brain tumors and has been distinguished from both meningioma and fibrous tumor. Since there are few genetic studies in existence, we have performed a comprehensive cytogenetic analysis of an infratentorial hemangiopericytoma in a 55 y‐old female. It was originally classified as a grade II tumor but recurred as a grade III tumor with a proliferation index of 20 %. By use of trypsin‐Giemsa staining (GTG‐banding) and multicolor fluorescence in situ hybridization (M‐FISH) we could confirm the loss of chromosomal material 10q that has been previously described in hemangiopericytoma, and furthermore we identified de novo chromosomal aberrations on chromosomes 8. Applying high‐density single nucleotide polymorphism array (SNP‐A) karyotyping, we detected several regions suggestive of partial uniparental disomy and clonal deletions as well as segments with loss or gain. These findings together with the results of immunohistochemical investigations seem to justify the nosological separation of hemangiopericytoma as a biologically different entity and should be verified in larger patient series.