Targeted Next-Generation Sequencing of Thymic Epithelial Tumours Revealed Pathogenic Variants in KIT, ERBB2, KRAS, and TP53 in 30% of Thymic Carcinomas

Simple Summary

The biology of thymic epithelial tumours (TETs), including thymomas and thymic carcinomas, and particularly the extent of molecular dysregulation, is poorly understood. Through next-generation sequencing of 15 genes implicated in common solid tumours in 53 TETs, we found a larger number of single nucleotide variants (SNVs) in thymic carcinomas than thymomas. About 30% of thymic carcinomas had at least one somatic pathogenic gene variant in TP53, ERBB2, KIT, or KRAS, whereas variants of uncertain clinical significance in KIT, ERBB2, and FOXL2 were found exclusively in thymomas. The presence of somatic pathogenic variants was non-significantly associated with shorter disease-free survival in thymic carcinoma patients. No somatic pathogenic or likely pathogenic SNV was found in thymomas. Importantly, we also evaluated germline SNVs, adding to the number of known genetic alterations in TETs and thereby enhancing our molecular understanding of these neoplasms.

Abstract

A better understanding of the molecular pathogenesis of thymic epithelial tumours (TETs) could revolutionise their treatment. We evaluated thymomas and thymic carcinomas by next-generation sequencing (NGS) of somatic or germline single nucleotide variants (SNVs) in genes commonly mutated in solid tumours. In total, 19 thymomas and 34 thymic carcinomas were analysed for nonsynonymous SNVs in 15 genes by targeted NGS (reference genome: hg19/GRCh37). Ten SNVs in TP53 (G154V, R158P, L194H, R267fs, R273C, R306 *, Q317 *), ERBB2 (V773M), KIT (L576P), and KRAS (Q61L) considered somatic and pathogenic/likely pathogenic were detected in 10 of 34 (29.4%) thymic carcinomas. No somatic SNVs confirmed as pathogenic/likely pathogenic were found in thymomas. Rare SNVs of uncertain or unknown functional and clinical significance, to our knowledge not reported previously in TETs, were found in ERBB2 (S703R), KIT (I690V), and FOXL2 (P157S) in 3 of 19 (16%) thymomas. The most frequent germline SNVs were TP53 P72R (94% TETs), ERBB2 I655V (40% TETs), and KIT M541L (9% TETs). No significant difference in median disease-free survival (DFS) was found between thymic carcinoma patients with and without pathogenic SNVs (p = 0.190); however, a trend toward a longer DFS was observed in the latter (16.0 vs. 30.0 months, respectively). In summary, NGS analysis of TETs revealed several SNVs in genes related to the p53, AKT, MAPK, and K-Ras signalling pathways. Thymic carcinomas showed greater genetic dysregulation than thymomas. The germline and rare SNVs of uncertain clinical significance reported in this study add to the number of known genetic alterations in TETs, thus extending our molecular understanding of these neoplasms. Druggable KIT alterations in thymic carcinomas have potential as therapeutic targets.

A thymoma or not a thymoma-that is the question: a case report

Thymomas are malignant, epithelial tumors of the thymus of diverse morphology that may metastasize or relapse after resection. The WHO histological classification includes five main subtypes A, AB, B1, B2 and B3. Types A and AB usually harbour a specific GTF2I gene mutation. Thymolipomas are very rare, benign tumors composed of thymic parenchyma and adipose tissue. We present the case of a 37-year-old male with an incidentally found mediastinal tumor that shared morphological features of a thymoma of unknown histological type and a thymolipoma-like tumor. Microscopically the tumor contained three components: (I) a highly organoid component that reproduced the thymic parenchyma with numerous Hassall corpuscles; (II) a lymphocyte-poor, epithelial component; (III) mature adipose tissue. A wide panel of immunohistochemical tests was used, but the results were not decisive for differential diagnosis. Genetic analysis of GTF2I, BRAF and NRAS genes revealed no mutations. The tumor was completely resected. The patient did not receive adjuvant radiotherapy. A 1.5 years after resection there was no evidence of tumor recurrence. Based on our case we carefully analyse and compare the microscopic features of thymoma vs. thymolipoma. The differentiation between these tumors is crucial due to their distinct clinical course and required therapeutic approach.