Cargando…

Diagnostic use of fluorescence in situ hybridization in expert review in a phase 2 study of trabectedin monotherapy in patients with advanced, translocation-related sarcoma

BACKGROUND: Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) is one of the most powerful genetic analysis tools for pathological diagnoses. FISH can detect various genetic abnormalities including gene translocation that was specifically found in translocation-related sarcomas (TRSs). Here, we report the us...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sugita, Shintaro, Asanuma, Hiroko, Hasegawa, Tadashi
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4828789/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27068820
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13000-016-0486-2
_version_ 1782426649485115392
author Sugita, Shintaro
Asanuma, Hiroko
Hasegawa, Tadashi
author_facet Sugita, Shintaro
Asanuma, Hiroko
Hasegawa, Tadashi
author_sort Sugita, Shintaro
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) is one of the most powerful genetic analysis tools for pathological diagnoses. FISH can detect various genetic abnormalities including gene translocation that was specifically found in translocation-related sarcomas (TRSs). Here, we report the use of FISH in expert review in a phase 2 study of trabectedin monotherapy for patients with advanced TRS. METHODS: TRS patients (n = 76) were enrolled in the trial at 12 study sites after pathological diagnoses were made, including morphological examination with or without evidence of translocation by genetic testing. Following histological reviews of the representative specimens at the study sites, we performed immunohistochemistry using the appropriate antibodies and FISH for genetic confirmation of the tumor types in the expert review. RESULTS: Among the 76 TRS cases, no split signal for SS18 probe was detected by FISH in three synovial sarcoma cases that were diagnosed at the study sites. Malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor (MPNST) was diagnosed in two cases and sarcomatoid carcinoma in one. One of the cases was a small round cell variant of MPNST. After excluding these three cases, we assessed the other 73. There were no split signals detected in 7 of the 73 cases by FISH analysis, due to decalcification and hyperfixation procedures. Excluding these seven cases, FISH detected translocations in 95 % (63/66) of the study cases with a high sensitivity. CONCLUSIONS: The diagnosis of TRS by FISH was highly sensitive and enabled genetic confirmation of the pathological diagnoses. We strongly recommend FISH as a confirmatory diagnostic test for TRS, which would enable the selection of patients with TRS in whom trabectedin is expected to be effective. This study was done in part that registered with Japan Pharmaceutical Information Center, number JapicCTI-121850.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4828789
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-48287892016-04-13 Diagnostic use of fluorescence in situ hybridization in expert review in a phase 2 study of trabectedin monotherapy in patients with advanced, translocation-related sarcoma Sugita, Shintaro Asanuma, Hiroko Hasegawa, Tadashi Diagn Pathol Research BACKGROUND: Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) is one of the most powerful genetic analysis tools for pathological diagnoses. FISH can detect various genetic abnormalities including gene translocation that was specifically found in translocation-related sarcomas (TRSs). Here, we report the use of FISH in expert review in a phase 2 study of trabectedin monotherapy for patients with advanced TRS. METHODS: TRS patients (n = 76) were enrolled in the trial at 12 study sites after pathological diagnoses were made, including morphological examination with or without evidence of translocation by genetic testing. Following histological reviews of the representative specimens at the study sites, we performed immunohistochemistry using the appropriate antibodies and FISH for genetic confirmation of the tumor types in the expert review. RESULTS: Among the 76 TRS cases, no split signal for SS18 probe was detected by FISH in three synovial sarcoma cases that were diagnosed at the study sites. Malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor (MPNST) was diagnosed in two cases and sarcomatoid carcinoma in one. One of the cases was a small round cell variant of MPNST. After excluding these three cases, we assessed the other 73. There were no split signals detected in 7 of the 73 cases by FISH analysis, due to decalcification and hyperfixation procedures. Excluding these seven cases, FISH detected translocations in 95 % (63/66) of the study cases with a high sensitivity. CONCLUSIONS: The diagnosis of TRS by FISH was highly sensitive and enabled genetic confirmation of the pathological diagnoses. We strongly recommend FISH as a confirmatory diagnostic test for TRS, which would enable the selection of patients with TRS in whom trabectedin is expected to be effective. This study was done in part that registered with Japan Pharmaceutical Information Center, number JapicCTI-121850. BioMed Central 2016-04-12 /pmc/articles/PMC4828789/ /pubmed/27068820 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13000-016-0486-2 Text en © Sugita et al. 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Sugita, Shintaro
Asanuma, Hiroko
Hasegawa, Tadashi
Diagnostic use of fluorescence in situ hybridization in expert review in a phase 2 study of trabectedin monotherapy in patients with advanced, translocation-related sarcoma
title Diagnostic use of fluorescence in situ hybridization in expert review in a phase 2 study of trabectedin monotherapy in patients with advanced, translocation-related sarcoma
title_full Diagnostic use of fluorescence in situ hybridization in expert review in a phase 2 study of trabectedin monotherapy in patients with advanced, translocation-related sarcoma
title_fullStr Diagnostic use of fluorescence in situ hybridization in expert review in a phase 2 study of trabectedin monotherapy in patients with advanced, translocation-related sarcoma
title_full_unstemmed Diagnostic use of fluorescence in situ hybridization in expert review in a phase 2 study of trabectedin monotherapy in patients with advanced, translocation-related sarcoma
title_short Diagnostic use of fluorescence in situ hybridization in expert review in a phase 2 study of trabectedin monotherapy in patients with advanced, translocation-related sarcoma
title_sort diagnostic use of fluorescence in situ hybridization in expert review in a phase 2 study of trabectedin monotherapy in patients with advanced, translocation-related sarcoma
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4828789/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27068820
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13000-016-0486-2
work_keys_str_mv AT sugitashintaro diagnosticuseoffluorescenceinsituhybridizationinexpertreviewinaphase2studyoftrabectedinmonotherapyinpatientswithadvancedtranslocationrelatedsarcoma
AT asanumahiroko diagnosticuseoffluorescenceinsituhybridizationinexpertreviewinaphase2studyoftrabectedinmonotherapyinpatientswithadvancedtranslocationrelatedsarcoma
AT hasegawatadashi diagnosticuseoffluorescenceinsituhybridizationinexpertreviewinaphase2studyoftrabectedinmonotherapyinpatientswithadvancedtranslocationrelatedsarcoma