{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03897911832946636, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01577726218097448, 'mean_word_length': 5.716510903426792, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Cytology of SMARCA4-Deficient Thoracic Neoplasms: Comparative Analysis of SMARCA4-Deficient Non-Small Cell Lung Carcinomas and SMARCA4-Deficient Thoracic Sarcomas

Introduction: Inactivating mutations of the SMARCA4 (SWI/SNF-related, matrix-associated, actin-dependent regulator of chromatin, subfamily A, member 4) gene and/or loss of the BRG1 (brahma-related gene 1) protein defines SMARCA4-deficient thoracic sarcoma (SMARCA4-dTS), an aggressive neoplasm with a usually fatal outcome. Similar SMARCA4 mutations/BRG1 loss is also seen in a subset of non-small cell lung carcinomas (NSCLCs; SMARCA4-dNSCLCs) that lack alterations in currently targetable oncogenic drivers, that is, EGFR, ALK, and ROS1. There is limited knowledge on the cytomorphological features of these SMARCA4-deficient thoracic neoplasms. Methods: We retrospectively analysed the cytology of 2 cases each of SMARCA4-dNSCLC and SMARCA4-dTS to understand their cytomorphological overlap, if any, and identify features that would prompt testing for BRG1 loss. Results: All 4 patients were males presenting with advanced disease, with a mean age of 41.5 years (SMARCA4-dTS) and 58.5 years (SMARCA4-dNSCLC) at presentation. The cytology of the 2 SMARCA4-dTSs was strikingly similar, showing predominantly singly dispersed rhabdoid phenotype tumour cells with perinuclear cytoplasmic condensations in an inflammatory or necrotic background. The cytology raised suspicion for a wide range of differentials, including melanoma, high-grade lymphoma, germ cell tumour, undifferentiated carcinoma, and undifferentiated sarcoma. SMARCA4-dNSCLCs, on the other hand, were recognizable as poorly differentiated (adeno)carcinomas and were easily distinguished from SMARCA4-dTSs, with both cases showing cohesive clusters of frequently large tumour cells with abundant pale cytoplasm. Conclusion: A diagnosis of SMARCA4-dTS is possible on cytology with appropriate ancillary testing and a high index of suspicion. The cytology of SMARCA4-dNSCLCs does not overlap with SMARCA4-dTS; rather, it resembles that of any poorly differentiated (adeno)carcinoma in the limited numbers analysed in this study.