Cargando…

Comparison of Diagnostic Yield of a FISH Panel Against Conventional Cytogenetic Studies for Hematological Malignancies: A South Indian Referral Laboratory Analysis Of 201 Cases

OBJECTIVES: Genetic markers are crucial fort diagnostic and prognostic investigation of hematological malignancies (HM). The conventional cytogenetic study (CCS) has been the gold standard for more than five decades. However, FISH (Fluorescence in Situ Hybridization) testing has become a popular mod...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ashok, Vishal, Ranganathan, Ramya, Chander, Smitha, Damodar, Sharat, Bhat, Sunil, KS, Nataraj, A, Satish Kumar, Jadav, Sachin Suresh, Rajashekaraiah, Mahesh, TS, Sundareshan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: West Asia Organization for Cancer Prevention 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5980910/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29286619
http://dx.doi.org/10.22034/APJCP.2017.18.12.3457
_version_ 1783327936782270464
author Ashok, Vishal
Ranganathan, Ramya
Chander, Smitha
Damodar, Sharat
Bhat, Sunil
KS, Nataraj
A, Satish Kumar
Jadav, Sachin Suresh
Rajashekaraiah, Mahesh
TS, Sundareshan
author_facet Ashok, Vishal
Ranganathan, Ramya
Chander, Smitha
Damodar, Sharat
Bhat, Sunil
KS, Nataraj
A, Satish Kumar
Jadav, Sachin Suresh
Rajashekaraiah, Mahesh
TS, Sundareshan
author_sort Ashok, Vishal
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: Genetic markers are crucial fort diagnostic and prognostic investigation of hematological malignancies (HM). The conventional cytogenetic study (CCS) has been the gold standard for more than five decades. However, FISH (Fluorescence in Situ Hybridization) testing has become a popular modality owing to its targeted approach and the ability to detect abnormalities in non-mitotic cells. We here aimed to compare the diagnostic yields of a FISH panel against CCS in HMs. METHODS: Samples of bone marrow and peripheral blood for a total of 201 HMs were tested for specific gene rearrangements using multi-target FISH and the results were compared with those from CCS. RESULTS: Exhibited a greater diagnostic yield with a positive result in 39.8% of the cases, as compared to 17.9% of cases detected by CCS. Cases of chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) benefited the most by FISH testing, which identified chromosomal aberrations beyond the capacity of CCS. FISH was least beneficial in myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) where the highest concordance with CCS was exhibited. Acute lymphocytic leukaemia (ALL) demonstrated greater benefit with CCS. In addition, we found the following abnormalities to be most prevalent in HMs by FISH panel testing: RUNX1 (21q22) amplification in ALL, deletion of D13S319/LAMP1 (13q14) in CLL, CKS1B (1q21) amplification in multiple myeloma and deletion of EGR1/RPS14 (5q31/5q32) in MDS, consistent with the literature. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, FISH was found to be advantageous in only a subset of HMs and cannot completely replace CCS. Utilization of the two modalities in conjunction or independently should depend on the indicated HM for an optimal approach to detecting chromosomal aberrations.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5980910
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher West Asia Organization for Cancer Prevention
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-59809102018-06-06 Comparison of Diagnostic Yield of a FISH Panel Against Conventional Cytogenetic Studies for Hematological Malignancies: A South Indian Referral Laboratory Analysis Of 201 Cases Ashok, Vishal Ranganathan, Ramya Chander, Smitha Damodar, Sharat Bhat, Sunil KS, Nataraj A, Satish Kumar Jadav, Sachin Suresh Rajashekaraiah, Mahesh TS, Sundareshan Asian Pac J Cancer Prev Research Article OBJECTIVES: Genetic markers are crucial fort diagnostic and prognostic investigation of hematological malignancies (HM). The conventional cytogenetic study (CCS) has been the gold standard for more than five decades. However, FISH (Fluorescence in Situ Hybridization) testing has become a popular modality owing to its targeted approach and the ability to detect abnormalities in non-mitotic cells. We here aimed to compare the diagnostic yields of a FISH panel against CCS in HMs. METHODS: Samples of bone marrow and peripheral blood for a total of 201 HMs were tested for specific gene rearrangements using multi-target FISH and the results were compared with those from CCS. RESULTS: Exhibited a greater diagnostic yield with a positive result in 39.8% of the cases, as compared to 17.9% of cases detected by CCS. Cases of chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) benefited the most by FISH testing, which identified chromosomal aberrations beyond the capacity of CCS. FISH was least beneficial in myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) where the highest concordance with CCS was exhibited. Acute lymphocytic leukaemia (ALL) demonstrated greater benefit with CCS. In addition, we found the following abnormalities to be most prevalent in HMs by FISH panel testing: RUNX1 (21q22) amplification in ALL, deletion of D13S319/LAMP1 (13q14) in CLL, CKS1B (1q21) amplification in multiple myeloma and deletion of EGR1/RPS14 (5q31/5q32) in MDS, consistent with the literature. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, FISH was found to be advantageous in only a subset of HMs and cannot completely replace CCS. Utilization of the two modalities in conjunction or independently should depend on the indicated HM for an optimal approach to detecting chromosomal aberrations. West Asia Organization for Cancer Prevention 2017 /pmc/articles/PMC5980910/ /pubmed/29286619 http://dx.doi.org/10.22034/APJCP.2017.18.12.3457 Text en Copyright: © Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY-SA/4.0 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
spellingShingle Research Article
Ashok, Vishal
Ranganathan, Ramya
Chander, Smitha
Damodar, Sharat
Bhat, Sunil
KS, Nataraj
A, Satish Kumar
Jadav, Sachin Suresh
Rajashekaraiah, Mahesh
TS, Sundareshan
Comparison of Diagnostic Yield of a FISH Panel Against Conventional Cytogenetic Studies for Hematological Malignancies: A South Indian Referral Laboratory Analysis Of 201 Cases
title Comparison of Diagnostic Yield of a FISH Panel Against Conventional Cytogenetic Studies for Hematological Malignancies: A South Indian Referral Laboratory Analysis Of 201 Cases
title_full Comparison of Diagnostic Yield of a FISH Panel Against Conventional Cytogenetic Studies for Hematological Malignancies: A South Indian Referral Laboratory Analysis Of 201 Cases
title_fullStr Comparison of Diagnostic Yield of a FISH Panel Against Conventional Cytogenetic Studies for Hematological Malignancies: A South Indian Referral Laboratory Analysis Of 201 Cases
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Diagnostic Yield of a FISH Panel Against Conventional Cytogenetic Studies for Hematological Malignancies: A South Indian Referral Laboratory Analysis Of 201 Cases
title_short Comparison of Diagnostic Yield of a FISH Panel Against Conventional Cytogenetic Studies for Hematological Malignancies: A South Indian Referral Laboratory Analysis Of 201 Cases
title_sort comparison of diagnostic yield of a fish panel against conventional cytogenetic studies for hematological malignancies: a south indian referral laboratory analysis of 201 cases
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5980910/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29286619
http://dx.doi.org/10.22034/APJCP.2017.18.12.3457
work_keys_str_mv AT ashokvishal comparisonofdiagnosticyieldofafishpanelagainstconventionalcytogeneticstudiesforhematologicalmalignanciesasouthindianreferrallaboratoryanalysisof201cases
AT ranganathanramya comparisonofdiagnosticyieldofafishpanelagainstconventionalcytogeneticstudiesforhematologicalmalignanciesasouthindianreferrallaboratoryanalysisof201cases
AT chandersmitha comparisonofdiagnosticyieldofafishpanelagainstconventionalcytogeneticstudiesforhematologicalmalignanciesasouthindianreferrallaboratoryanalysisof201cases
AT damodarsharat comparisonofdiagnosticyieldofafishpanelagainstconventionalcytogeneticstudiesforhematologicalmalignanciesasouthindianreferrallaboratoryanalysisof201cases
AT bhatsunil comparisonofdiagnosticyieldofafishpanelagainstconventionalcytogeneticstudiesforhematologicalmalignanciesasouthindianreferrallaboratoryanalysisof201cases
AT ksnataraj comparisonofdiagnosticyieldofafishpanelagainstconventionalcytogeneticstudiesforhematologicalmalignanciesasouthindianreferrallaboratoryanalysisof201cases
AT asatishkumar comparisonofdiagnosticyieldofafishpanelagainstconventionalcytogeneticstudiesforhematologicalmalignanciesasouthindianreferrallaboratoryanalysisof201cases
AT jadavsachinsuresh comparisonofdiagnosticyieldofafishpanelagainstconventionalcytogeneticstudiesforhematologicalmalignanciesasouthindianreferrallaboratoryanalysisof201cases
AT rajashekaraiahmahesh comparisonofdiagnosticyieldofafishpanelagainstconventionalcytogeneticstudiesforhematologicalmalignanciesasouthindianreferrallaboratoryanalysisof201cases
AT tssundareshan comparisonofdiagnosticyieldofafishpanelagainstconventionalcytogeneticstudiesforhematologicalmalignanciesasouthindianreferrallaboratoryanalysisof201cases