A novel specific genetic translocation in epithelioid hemangioendotelioma, showing a fusion of the WWTR1 and CAMTA1 genes, supports the monoclonality of multifocal epithelioid hemangioendotelioma.

Like other vascular tumors, epithelioid hemangioendothelioma (EHE) is multifocal in approximately 50% of cases, and it is unclear whether the separate lesions represent multifocal disease or metastases. We hypothesized that the identification of an identical WWTR1-CAMTA1 rearrangement in different EHEs from the same patient supports the monoclonal origin of EHE. To test our hypothesis, we undertook a molecular analysis of two multicentric EHEs of the liver, including separate tumor samples from each patient. Matherial and Methods: We retrieved two cases of EHE with available tissue for molecular analysis. In both cases, fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) was performed to identify the presence of the WWTR1-CAMTA1 rearrangement to confirm the histologic diagnosis of EHE, as previously described. The reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) products were analyzed by electrophoresis and the RT-PCR–amplified products were sequenced using the Sanger method. Results: FISH analysis revealed signal abnormalities in both WWTR1 and CAMTA1. Combined results confirmed the presence of the t(1;3)(1p36.23;3q25.1) translocation in both cases of EHE. Using RT-PCR analysis, we found that the size of the rearranged bands was identical in the different tumors from each patient. The sequence of the fusion gene confirmed a different WWTR1-CAMTA1 rearrangement in each patient, but an identical WWTR1-CAMTA1 rearrangement in the different lesions from each patient. Discussion: Because of its generally indolent clinical course, EHE is commonly classified as a multifocal, rather than metastatic, disease. In this study, we examined two cases of multifocal liver EHE and found an identical WWTR1-CAMTA1 rearrangement in each lesion from the same patient, but not between the two patients. These findings suggest that multifocal EHE arises from metastasis of the same neoplastic clone rather than from the simultaneous formation of multiple neoplastic clones, which supports the monoclonal origin of multifocal EHE.

Role of new molecular approaches for the early diagnosis of bladder cancer in clinical practice

There is an urgent need to improve the performance of urine cytology for the diagnosis of bladder cancer. In preliminary studies, telomerase activity evaluated by telomeric repeat amplification protocol (TRAP) assay and chromosomal aneuploidy detected by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) in the diagnosis of bladder cancer have produced important results. Urine cell-free (UCF) DNA has also been proposed as a potential marker for early bladder cancer diagnosis. In the first study the diagnostic performance of TRAP assay and FISH analysis was assessed, while the second study evaluated the potential role of UCF DNA integrity in early bladder cancer diagnosis. In the first cross-sectional study, 289 consecutive patients who presented with urinary symptoms underwent cystoscopy and cytology evaluation. In the second study, UCF DNA was isolated from 51 bladder cancer patients, 46 symptomatic patients, and 32 healthy volunteers. c-Myc, BCAS1 and HER2 gene sequences longer than 250 bp were quantified by real time PCR to verify UCF DNA integrity. In the first study, sensitivity and specificity were 0.39 and 0.83, respectively, for cytology; 0.66 and 0.72 for TRAP; 0.78 and 0.60 for the cytology and TRAP combination; 0.78 and 0.78 for the cytology, TRAP and FISH combination; and 0.65 and 0.93 for the TRAP and FISH combination. In the second study, at the best cutoff of 0.1 ng/µl, UCF DNA integrity analysis showed a sensitivity of 0.73 and a specificity of 0.84 in healthy individuals and 0.83 in symptomatic patients. The preliminary results suggest that these biomarkers could potentially be used for the early diagnosis of bladder cancer, especially in high-risk populations (e.g, symptomatic individuals exposed to occupational risk) who may benefit from the use of noninvasive diagnostic tests in terms of cost-benefit.