Search

Purpose: Supratentorial (ST) ependymoma subgroups are defined by two different fusions with different prognoses. Astroblastomas, MN1-altered, have ependymal-like histopathologic features and represent a differential diagnosis in children. We hypothesized that ZFTA-fused ependymoma and YAP1-fused ependymoma on the one hand, and astroblastoma, MN1-altered, on the other hand, show different MRI characteristics., Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the preoperative imaging of 45 patients with ST ependymoma or astroblastoma between January 2000 and September 2020, blinded to histomolecular grouping. Several characteristics, such as location, tumor volume, calcifications, solid/cystic component, and signal enhancement or diffusion were evaluated. We compared imaging characteristics according to their molecular subtype (ZFTA-fused, YAP1-fused, and astroblastoma, MN1-altered)., Results: Thirty-nine patients were classified as having an ependymoma, 35 with a ZFTA fusion and four with a YAP1 fusion, and six as having an astroblastoma, MN1-altered. YAP1-fused ependymomas were more likely to involve at least 3 lobes than ZFTA-fused ependymomas. Astroblastomas were located in the frontal lobe in 100% of the tumors versus 49% of the ependymomas. Cerebral blood flow by arterial spin labeling was higher in astroblastomas than in ependymomas. There were no differences in the other characteristics between the molecular groups. All the tumors showed common features: intra-axial extra-ventricular tumors, very frequent contrast enhancement (39/43, 91%), a cystic/necrotic component (41/45, 91%), restricted diffusion (32/36, 89%), calcifications (15/18, 83%), and peri-tumoral edema (38/44, 86%)., Conclusion: The distinction between ST ependymoma subtypes and astroblastomas can be guided by several imaging features. These tumors share common imaging features that may help to differentiate ST ependymomas and astroblastomas from other pediatric ST tumors., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest V. Perrod, R. Levy, A. Tauziède-Espariat, C.-J. Roux, K. Beccaria, T. Blauwblomme, J. Grill, C. Dufour, L. Guerrini-Rousseau, S. Abbou, S. Bolle, A. Roux, J. Pallud, C. Provost, C. Oppenheim, P. Varlet, N. Boddaert and V. Dangouloff-Ros declare that they have no competing interests., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany.)

Objectives: Posterior fossa ependymoma group A (EPN_PFA) and group B (EPN_PFB) can be distinguished by their DNA methylation and give rise to different prognoses. We compared the MRI characteristics of EPN_PFA and EPN_PFB at presentation., Methods: Preoperative imaging of 68 patients with posterior fossa ependymoma from two centers was reviewed by three independent readers, blinded for histomolecular grouping. Location, tumor extension, tumor volume, hydrocephalus, calcifications, tissue component, enhancement or diffusion signal, and histopathological data (cellular density, calcifications, necrosis, mitoses, vascularization, and microvascular proliferation) were compared between the groups. Categorical data were compared between groups using Fisher's exact tests, and quantitative data using Mann-Whitney tests. We performed a Benjamini-Hochberg correction of the p values to account for multiple tests., Results: Fifty-six patients were categorized as EPN_PFA and 12 as EPN_PFB, with median ages of 2 and 20 years, respectively (p = 0.0008). The median EPN_PFA tumoral volume was larger (57 vs 29 cm 3 , p = 0.003), with more pronounced hydrocephalus (p = 0.002). EPN_PFA showed an exclusive central position within the 4th ventricle in 61% of patients vs 92% for EPN_PFB (p = 0.01). Intratumor calcifications were found in 93% of EPN_PFA vs 40% of EPN_PFB (p = 0.001). Invasion of the posterior fossa foramina was mostly found for EPN_PFA, particularly the foramina of Luschka (p = 0.0008). EPN_PFA showed whole and homogeneous tumor enhancement in 5% vs 75% of EPN_PFB (p = 0.0008). All mainly cystic tumors were EPN_PFB (p = 0.002). The minimal and maximal relative ADC was slightly lower in EPN_PFA (p = 0.02 and p = 0.01, respectively)., Conclusion: Morphological characteristics from imaging differ between posterior fossa ependymoma subtypes and may help to distinguish them preoperatively., Clinical Relevance Statement: This study provides a tool to differentiate between group A and group B ependymomas, which will ultimately allow the therapeutic strategy to be adapted in the early stages of patient management., Key Points: • Posterior fossa ependymoma subtypes often have different imaging characteristics. • Posterior fossa ependymomas group A are commonly median or lateral tissular calcified masses, with incomplete enhancement, affecting young children and responsible for pronounced hydrocephalus and invasion of the posterior fossa foramina. • Posterior fossa ependymomas group B are commonly median non-calcified masses of adolescents and adults, predominantly cystic, and minimally invasive, with total and homogeneous enhancement., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to European Society of Radiology.)

The cIMPACT-NOW Update 7 has replaced the WHO nosology of "ependymoma, RELA fusion positive" by "Supratentorial-ependymoma, C11orf95-fusion positive". This modification reinforces the idea that supratentorial-ependymomas exhibiting fusion that implicates the C11orf95 (now called ZFTA) gene with or without the RELA gene, represent the same histomolecular entity. A hot off the press molecular study has identified distinct clusters of the DNA methylation class of ZFTA fusion-positive tumors. Interestingly, clusters 2 and 4 comprised tumors of different morphologies, with various ZFTA fusions without involvement of RELA. In this paper, we present a detailed series of thirteen cases of non-RELA ZFTA-fused supratentorial tumors with extensive clinical, radiological, histopathological, immunohistochemical, genetic and epigenetic (DNA methylation profiling) characterization. Contrary to the age of onset and MRI aspects similar to RELA fusion-positive EPN, we noted significant histopathological heterogeneity (pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma-like, astroblastoma-like, ependymoma-like, and even sarcoma-like patterns) in this cohort. Immunophenotypically, these NFκB immunonegative tumors expressed GFAP variably, but EMA constantly and L1CAM frequently. Different gene partners were fused with ZFTA: NCOA1/2, MAML2 and for the first time MN1. These tumors had epigenetic homologies within the DNA methylation class of ependymomas-RELA and were classified as satellite clusters 2 and 4. Cluster 2 (n = 9) corresponded to tumors with classic ependymal histological features (n = 4) but also had astroblastic features (n = 5). Various types of ZFTA fusions were associated with cluster 2, but as in the original report, ZFTA:MAML2 fusion was frequent. Cluster 4 was enriched with sarcoma-like tumors. Moreover, we reported a novel anatomy of three ZFTA:NCOA1/2 fusions with only 1 ZFTA zinc finger domain in the putative fusion protein, whereas all previously reported non-RELA ZFTA fusions have 4 ZFTA zinc fingers. All three cases presented a sarcoma-like morphology. This genotype/phenotype association requires further studies for confirmation. Our series is the first to extensively characterize this new subset of supratentorial ZFTA-fused ependymomas and highlights the usefulness of ZFTA FISH analysis to confirm the existence of a rearrangement without RELA abnormality., (© 2021. The Author(s).)