Pitfalls in Pediatric Supratentorial ZFTA Fusion-Positive Ependymoma: A Clinicopathological Study of 17 Cases.
In 17 pediatric supratentorial ZFTA fusion-positive ependymomas, the study found frequent non-classical morphology, false-negative fusion testing—particularly with FISH—and diagnostic value from extensive sampling, integrated immunohistochemistry, and complementary molecular platforms.
Open original publication →What the AI sees
In 17 pediatric supratentorial ZFTA fusion-positive ependymomas, the study found frequent non-classical morphology, false-negative fusion testing—particularly with FISH—and diagnostic value from extensive sampling, integrated immunohistochemistry, and complementary molecular platforms.
Research significance
The evidence supports improved diagnostic classification rather than a treatment effect; by reducing missed or incorrect ZFTA fusion-positive diagnoses, multimodal testing could indirectly improve risk assessment and treatment selection, but this clinical benefit remains an inference requiring prospective validation.
Source abstract
AIMS: Supratentorial ependymoma with ZFTA fusion represents a molecularly defined entity with characteristic but heterogeneous histopathological features. In routine diagnostic practice, morphologic diversity and limitations of individual molecular assays may lead to diagnostic uncertainty. This study aimed to systematically characterize the clinicopathological spectrum of pediatric supratentorial ZFTA fusion-positive ependymomas and to highlight potential diagnostic pitfalls. METHODS: Seventeen pediatric cases with confirmed ZFTA fusion were retrospectively analyzed. Clinical, radiological, histopathological, immunohistochemical (including L1CAM, p65/RELA, etc.), and molecular findings (FISH, NGS, DNA methylation profiling), along with follow-up data, were evaluated. RESULTS: The median patient age was 7 years (range, 1-14 years). Non-classical morphologic patterns (embryonal-like, sieve-like, ependymoblastic-like) occurred in 8/17 cases (47.1%), mostly in WHO grade 3 tumors. Crucially, all 8 cases retained focal conventional ependymal features upon thorough sampling and maintained diffuse L1CAM positivity, nuclear p65/RELA, and dot-like EMA positivity in deceptive areas. Molecularly, FISH yielded a 28.6% (4/14) false-negative rate in high-grade cases, and NGS showed 1 false-negative result (7.1%), rescued by DNA methylation profiling. Overall median follow-up was 48 months (range, 6-68). WHO grade 2 tumors had zero recurrence (median follow-up, 60 months), whereas WHO grade 3 tumors showed median time to recurrence of 6 months (range, 3-12). CONCLUSIONS: Pediatric ZFTA fusion-positive ependymomas exhibit morphologic divergence and false-negative molecular risks. Extensive tissue sampling, integrated IHC surrogate panels (p65/L1CAM/GFAP/EMA), and complementary molecular platforms are essential for accurate diagnosis.