ArticleActa neuropathologica communications2026
Two pediatric supratentorial ependymal tumors with novel PLAG1 fusions.
Article in Acta neuropathologica communications, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The 2021 World Health Organization (WHO) Classification of Central Nervous System (CNS) classification formalized routine molecular profiling, and DNA-methylation studies have since delineated PLAG-family-altered CNS entities: PLAGL1 fusion-positive supratentorial neuroepithelial tumors (NET_PLAGL1) and embryonal tumors with PLAGL1/PLAGL2 amplification. PLAG1 fusions with diverse partners have been reported in CNS embryonal tumors, but have not been described in supratentorial neuroepithelial tumors to date. We describe two pediatric supratentorial ependymal tumors with novel PLAG1 fusions that do not match any 2021 WHO-defined entity or any PLAG-family-related entity recently reported in the literature. Case 1 (4-year-old boy) had a 7.6-cm left lateral ventricular mass with edema and heterogeneous enhancement; gross total resection was performed without adjuvant therapy (alive at 8 months). Histology showed diffusely low cellularity with small- to medium-sized round nuclei, minimal atypia, and focal calcifications; no ependymal rosettes, branching vessels, or clear-cell change. Tumor cells were positive for GFAP and H3K27me3, and negative for Desmin, EMA, OLIG2, L1CAM, NF-κB and H3K27M. The MIB-1 labeling index was ~ 5%. RNA-seq identified TNC::PLAG1 fusion; FISH showed PLAG1 rearrangement. DNA methylation clustered with spinal subependymoma, despite supratentorial location. Case 2 (4-year-old girl) had a 1.4 × 1.1 cm left parahippocampal lesion; resected without adjuvant therapy (alive at 4 months). Histology showed low-to-moderate cellularity with diffuse microcystic change, focal clear/vacuolated cells, and delicate branching vessels. Tumor cells were positive for GFAP, EMA, L1CAM, H3K27me3 and ATRX, and negative for EMA, Desmin, NF-κB, OLIG2, H3K27M, and CD34 (MIB-1 ~ 2%). RNA-seq identified TXNIP::PLAG1 fusion. Methylation did not reach a class threshold. Both cases ultimately warrant a final diagnosis of ependymal tumor, not elsewhere classified. To our knowledge, TNC::PLAG1 and TXNIP::PLAG1 are first-ever fusions reported in any tumor type. They also represent the first PLAG1 fusions identified in pediatric supratentorial ependymal tumors. These cases highlight the value of integrating histology, methylation profiling, and fusion detection, and suggest a new candidate supratentorial ependymal subtype with PLAG1 fusions, pending validation in larger series.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.