Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Examines genetic alterations in malignant phyllodes tumours, suggesting implications for ancestry and progression.
Background Malignant phyllodes tumours (MPT) are aggressive breast fibroepithelial neoplasms. Their rarity has limited their genetic characterization, and associations with genetic ancestry and progression drivers remain poorly understood. Prior studies suggest two evolutionary pathways according to MED12 mutational status. We sought to determine the repertoire of somatic genetic alterations in cancer genes in primary versus metastatic/recurrent MPTs, and according to MED12 mutational status and genetic ancestry. Materials and methods We analysed the paired tumour‐normal targeting sequencing data (up to 505 cancer‐related genes) of 31 MPTs (primary, n = 20; metastatic/recurrent, n = 11). Results Metastatic/recurrent MPTs harboured a numerically higher frequency of genetic alterations in CDKN2A/2B (55% vs. 25%). Moreover, analysis of an MPT case with paired primary and metastatic samples revealed a CDKN2A/2B homozygous deletion restricted to the metastatic sample, suggesting a role for CDKN2A/2B in progression. Compared with MED12 ‐wild type MPTs, MED12 ‐mutant MPTs had higher tumour mutation burden ( P = 0.002), frequency of TERT promoter (82% vs. 35%; P = 0.02) and RB1 mutations (45% vs. 5%; P = 0.01). Genetic alterations in the PI3K pathway, including PIK3CA and PTEN , were only present in MED12 ‐wild type MPTs, and absent in MED12 ‐mutant cases (15% vs. 0%; P > 0.05). Furthermore, genetic alterations in EGFR were restricted to MPTs from patients of European genetic ancestry and absent in those of Asian ancestry (43% vs. 0%; P > 0.05). Conclusions Taken together, the repertoire of genetic alterations in primary and metastatic/recurrent MPTs shows overlap, and CDKN2A/2B homozygous deletions may play a role in progression. Additionally, molecular profiles of MPTs may vary according to genetic ancestry and MED12 mutational status.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yildirim et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: