Clinicopathological Features of CCDC6-RET and NCOA4-RET Fusions in Thyroid Cancer: A Single-Center Retrospective Cohort Study in a Chinese Population.

Abstract

Background: The rearranged during transfection (RET) proto-oncogene fusion is common in papillary thyroid cancer (PTC), varying across ethnic groups. However, comprehensive comparisons of RET fusion types are limited. This study aims to identify predominant RET fusions and analyze their clinicopathological characteristics in a cohort of Chinese thyroid cancer cases. Methods: This single-center retrospective cohort study analyzed thyroid cancer data, utilizing next-generation sequencing on formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue samples. Detailed clinicopathological data of thyroid cancer cases with RET fusions were collected. Results: Among 2300 thyroid cancer cases, RET fusions were exclusively found in PTC or differentiated high-grade thyroid carcinoma (DHGTC) cases (2234 cases), absent in other types (66 cases). Of the 2234 PTC or DHGTC cases, 113 (5.06%) exhibited RET fusions, including 100 primary cases. Coiled-coil domain containing 6 (CCDC6)-RET fusions predominated (78.0%, 78/100), with nuclear receptor coactivator 4 (NCOA4)-RET fusions representing 22.0% (22/100). NCOA4-RET fusions were more prevalent in patients aged 45 years and older (54.5% vs. 28.2%, p = 0.021) and DHGTC cases (p < 0.05) and associated with higher rates of lymph node metastases (90.9% vs. 67.9%, p = 0.032). CCDC6-RET fusion exhibited a higher prevalence of Hashimoto's thyroiditis (HT) (67.9% vs. 22.7%, p < 0.001) and elevated thyroglobulin antibody levels (14.11 [1.86-174.32] IU/mL vs. 2.01 [1.14-15.41] IU/mL, p = 0.018). Moreover, CCDC6-RET fusion predominantly occurred in classical PTC (56.4%, 44/78) and infiltrative follicular PTC (17.9%, 14/78), whereas NCOA4-RET fusion was more frequent in classical PTC (36.4%, 8/22), solid PTC (27.3%, 6/22), and DHGTC (27.3%, 6/22). RET fusions with compound mutations were associated with older age (≥45 years) and bilateral thyroid involvement. Follow-up data showed a higher recurrence rate in the RET fusion group compared with the BRAFV600E mutation group (5.0% vs. 0.0%, p = 0.018). Although the NCOA4-RET group showed a numerically higher recurrence rate compared with CCDC6-RET (9.1% vs. 3.8%), this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.559). Conclusions: RET fusions are specific to PTC or DHGTC cases among Chinese thyroid cancer cases. CCDC6-RET and NCOA4-RET fusions exhibited distinct clinicopathological features, with NCOA4-RET being more aggressive.