The embryonal‐appearing components exhibited minimal ependymal differentiation including a characteristic EMA positivity and tubular structures, but histologically did not fit with ependymoma because they lacked perivascular pseudorosettes, a histological hallmark of ependymoma, formed well‐delineated nests, and had diffuse and strong staining for CAM5.2. The gene discussed is MUC1; the disease is ependymoma.