ArticleThe journal of pathology. Clinical research2026
Not all NTRK fusions in mesenchymal neoplasia are driver events: implications on classification and targeted therapy.
Article in The journal of pathology. Clinical research, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
NTRK fusions drive the pathogenesis of a distinctive group of mesenchymal neoplasms with significant impact on classification and targeted therapy. However, unexpected NTRK fusions have been reported in other sarcoma entities, raising uncertainty over their specificity and clinical management. Herein, we investigate the incidence and structural variants of NTRK fusions among a large clinicopathologic and molecular sarcoma cohort. The goal was to distinguish primary driver NTRK fusions from potential passenger events and correlate with sarcoma histotypes. NTRK1-3 fusions were queried across a large spectrum of sarcomas, profiled by targeted DNA and/or RNAseq. Fusions were classified as oncogenic when NTRK was the 3' partner, in-frame, retained kinase domain (KD), and/or RNAseq confirmation; fusions of uncertain significance (FUS) when out-of-frame, lacking full KD, and/or RNAseq negative. We identified 48 cases with NTRK fusions, detected either by pathologist-initiated RNAseq for diagnosis (n = 27) or by clinician-initiated DNAseq for therapeutic target discovery (n = 21). For the latter subset, reflex RNAseq was activated for confirmation. Integrated review confirmed 33 (69%) oncogenic fusions. Remaining were FUS, apart from one indeterminate. In all except three cases, oncogenic fusions occurred in canonical NTRK-driven histotypes. In contrast, NTRK FUS were detected in various pathologic entities, including well-differentiated/dedifferentiated liposarcoma (n = 9, 60%), two osteosarcoma, and single cases of other subtypes. NTRK1 fusions were the most common in both oncogenic and FUS groups (61%, 67%). CDKN2A/B deletions were observed mostly in oncogenic NTRK1 fusions (71%), while MDM2/CDK4 amplifications in the NTRK1 FUS. The FUS group demonstrated lower NTRK mRNA expression, with a mean of -4.60, p < 0.001. Pan-TRK immunohistochemistry was positive in cases with oncogenic NTRK fusions, and negative in FUS cases. Only two-thirds of NTRK fusions detected were functional drivers, mostly from pathologist-driven testing of suggestive histotypes. In contrast, genomic profiling in complex sarcomas often yields passenger FUS, lacking functional impact.
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.