Page 16 - Read Online
P. 16

Page 2 of 12                                         van der Ent et al. J Transl Genet Genom 2018;2:10. I  https://doi.org/10.20517/jtgg.2018.09

               features and biomarkers, in the past it has been ascribed to endothelial, reticuloendothelial, hematopoietic,
                                             [3-5]
               neural crest and mesenchymal cells . Currently, the view is that EWS arises from a progenitor or stem cell
               derived from neural crest or mesenchymal cells. The main sites of involvement are the long bones, pelvis and
               ribs (~85% of all cases), and lower extremities and the paravertebral region in cases of extra skeletal involve-
                         [1,6]
               ment (~15%) .

               Overall survival rates of EWS patients with localised disease have starkly improved since the introduction
                                                    [7]
               of systemic therapy to the treatment regime . Patients with localised disease currently have an overall event
                                    [8]
               free survival of 60%-70% . In a quarter of patients, metastatic disease is observed at the time of diagnosis.
               These patients have an unfavourable prognosis, with overall event free survival of 20%-30% [9-12] . Patients who
               solely have lung-metastases seem to fare somewhat better than patients with metastases in bone or bone-
               marrow [13,14] .

               Standard protocol for treatment of EWS upon diagnosis is chemotherapy followed by surgical resection and/
               or radiotherapy [15,16] . In Europe, the chemotherapeutic regime consists of multiple cycles of vincristine, ifos-
               famide, doxorubicin and etoposide [16,17] .


               GENETIC ALTERATIONS
               Chromosomal translocations
               In 85% of all EWS cases, there is a reciprocal t(11;22)(q24;q12) translocation, merging ES Breakpoint region
                                                                    [18]
               1 (EWSR1) to Friend leukaemia virus integration site 1 (FLI1) . The fusion of EWSR1 with ERG, t(21;22)
               (q11;q12), makes up for another 10% of EWS cases [19,20] . Both FLI1 and ERG are members of the erythroblast
               transformation-specific (ETS) transcription factor family and share a conserved DNA binding domain
               structure. Fusion of the N-terminal region of EWSR1, which contains a strong transcriptional activation do-
               main [21,22] , and these DNA binding domains causes aberrant transcription of a multitude of genes. Addition-
                                                                                                 [27]
               ally, EWSR1-ETS is known to affect epigenetic programs [23,24] , splicing [25,26] , and metabolic activity  of EWS.
               Oncogenic fusions between ETS genes and transcriptional activators are not unique to EWS: in 50%-70% of
                                                                      [28]
               prostate cancers, similar chromosomal rearrangements are found .

               The breakpoint position varies, and commonly occurs between exons 7-11 for EWSR1 and exons 4-9 for
               FLI1, leading to variations in fusion types between patients with EWSR1-FLI1. The most common type is a
               fusion between EWSR1 exons 1-7 and FLI1 exons 6-9, a type 1 fusion, or EWSR1 exons 1-7 and FLI1 exons 5-9,
               a type 2 fusion. The effect of these variations in the oncogene on its function has been debated. While some
               studies observe differences in malignancy between fusion types [29,30] , a European prospective trial found no
                                               [31]
               prognostic significance between them . Different fusion types were shown to have a different dependence
               on various proteins of the splicing machinery, so inhibition of splicing factors may have therapeutic value in
                               [32]
               some cases of EWS .

               As the only consistent genetic alteration, among the very few found in EWS in general, EWSR1-FLI1 has
               been the main player in the attempts to develop in vitro and in vivo models for the disease. However, de-
                                                                                              [33]
               velopment of transgenic mouse-models is hampered by toxicity of EWSR1-FLI1 to most cells . Additional
               genetic variations may be needed to create a permissive environment, implied by the bias of disease occur-
                                [1]
               rence in Caucasians . A recent GWAS identified 3 EWS-associated single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs),
                                              [34]
               near EGR2, BMF and TARDBP genes . At the locus near EGR2, the causative SNP links two GGAA repeat
                      [35]
               stretches . In addition to classic ETS transcription factor binding sites, EWSR1-FLI1 preferentially binds to
               such stretches of GGAA repeats, where its activity increases with the increase of amount of repeats [36,37] .

               In addition to the more common EWSR1-FLI1 and EWSR1-ERG translocation events, other fusions between
               members of the TET family of proteins (including EWSR1 and FUS) and members of the ETS transcription
   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21