{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03248259860788863, 'fraction_numerical': 0.013921113689095127, 'mean_word_length': 6.132231404958677, '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}}
CIC break‐apart fluorescence in‐situ hybridization misses a subset of CIC–DUX4 sarcomas: a clinicopathological and molecular study

Approximately 60–70% of high‐grade round‐cell sarcomas that lack the Ewing sarcoma breakpoint region 1 (EWSR1) rearrangement harbour a rearrangement of the CIC gene, most commonly CIC–DUX4. Recent studies have established that CIC‐rearranged sarcomas constitute a distinct group characterized by recognizable histology and immunoprofiles, such as positivity for ETV4 and WT1 and negativity for NKX2.2. Although these sarcomas are diagnosed increasingly in practice by fluorescence in‐situ hybridization (FISH) with CIC break‐apart probes, the optimal modality to diagnose these sarcomas has not been determined. In this study, we describe four round‐cell sarcomas that showed false‐negative results by CIC break‐apart FISH assays.