Cargando…

Comparison between Immunocytochemistry, FISH and NGS for ALK and ROS1 Rearrangement Detection in Cytological Samples

The detection of ROS1 and ALK rearrangements is performed for advanced-stage non-small cell lung cancer. Several techniques can be used on cytological samples, such as immunocytochemistry (ICC), fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and, more recently, next-generation sequencing (NGS), which is...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Frankel, Diane, Nanni, Isabelle, Ouafik, L’Houcine, Camilla, Clara, Pellegrino, Eric, Beaufils, Nathalie, Greillier, Laurent, Dutau, Hervé, Astoul, Philippe, Kaspi, Elise, Roll, Patrice
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9502752/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36142468
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijms231810556
_version_ 1784795783115046912
author Frankel, Diane
Nanni, Isabelle
Ouafik, L’Houcine
Camilla, Clara
Pellegrino, Eric
Beaufils, Nathalie
Greillier, Laurent
Dutau, Hervé
Astoul, Philippe
Kaspi, Elise
Roll, Patrice
author_facet Frankel, Diane
Nanni, Isabelle
Ouafik, L’Houcine
Camilla, Clara
Pellegrino, Eric
Beaufils, Nathalie
Greillier, Laurent
Dutau, Hervé
Astoul, Philippe
Kaspi, Elise
Roll, Patrice
author_sort Frankel, Diane
collection PubMed
description The detection of ROS1 and ALK rearrangements is performed for advanced-stage non-small cell lung cancer. Several techniques can be used on cytological samples, such as immunocytochemistry (ICC), fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and, more recently, next-generation sequencing (NGS), which is gradually becoming the gold standard. We performed a retrospective study to compare ALK and ROS1 rearrangement results from immunocytochemistry, FISH and NGS methods from 131 cytological samples. Compared to NGS, the sensitivity and specificity of ICC were 0.79 and 0.91, respectively, for ALK, and 1 and 0.87 for ROS1. Regarding FISH, the sensitivity and specificity were both at 1 for ALK and ROS1 probes. False-positive cases obtained by ICC were systematically corrected by FISH. When using ICC and FISH techniques, results are very close to NGS. The false-positive cases obtained by ICC are corrected by FISH, and the true-positive cases are confirmed. NGS has the potential to improve the detection of ALK and ROS1 rearrangements in cytological samples; however, the cost of this technique is still much higher than the sequential use of ICC and FISH.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9502752
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-95027522022-09-24 Comparison between Immunocytochemistry, FISH and NGS for ALK and ROS1 Rearrangement Detection in Cytological Samples Frankel, Diane Nanni, Isabelle Ouafik, L’Houcine Camilla, Clara Pellegrino, Eric Beaufils, Nathalie Greillier, Laurent Dutau, Hervé Astoul, Philippe Kaspi, Elise Roll, Patrice Int J Mol Sci Article The detection of ROS1 and ALK rearrangements is performed for advanced-stage non-small cell lung cancer. Several techniques can be used on cytological samples, such as immunocytochemistry (ICC), fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and, more recently, next-generation sequencing (NGS), which is gradually becoming the gold standard. We performed a retrospective study to compare ALK and ROS1 rearrangement results from immunocytochemistry, FISH and NGS methods from 131 cytological samples. Compared to NGS, the sensitivity and specificity of ICC were 0.79 and 0.91, respectively, for ALK, and 1 and 0.87 for ROS1. Regarding FISH, the sensitivity and specificity were both at 1 for ALK and ROS1 probes. False-positive cases obtained by ICC were systematically corrected by FISH. When using ICC and FISH techniques, results are very close to NGS. The false-positive cases obtained by ICC are corrected by FISH, and the true-positive cases are confirmed. NGS has the potential to improve the detection of ALK and ROS1 rearrangements in cytological samples; however, the cost of this technique is still much higher than the sequential use of ICC and FISH. MDPI 2022-09-12 /pmc/articles/PMC9502752/ /pubmed/36142468 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijms231810556 Text en © 2022 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Frankel, Diane
Nanni, Isabelle
Ouafik, L’Houcine
Camilla, Clara
Pellegrino, Eric
Beaufils, Nathalie
Greillier, Laurent
Dutau, Hervé
Astoul, Philippe
Kaspi, Elise
Roll, Patrice
Comparison between Immunocytochemistry, FISH and NGS for ALK and ROS1 Rearrangement Detection in Cytological Samples
title Comparison between Immunocytochemistry, FISH and NGS for ALK and ROS1 Rearrangement Detection in Cytological Samples
title_full Comparison between Immunocytochemistry, FISH and NGS for ALK and ROS1 Rearrangement Detection in Cytological Samples
title_fullStr Comparison between Immunocytochemistry, FISH and NGS for ALK and ROS1 Rearrangement Detection in Cytological Samples
title_full_unstemmed Comparison between Immunocytochemistry, FISH and NGS for ALK and ROS1 Rearrangement Detection in Cytological Samples
title_short Comparison between Immunocytochemistry, FISH and NGS for ALK and ROS1 Rearrangement Detection in Cytological Samples
title_sort comparison between immunocytochemistry, fish and ngs for alk and ros1 rearrangement detection in cytological samples
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9502752/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36142468
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijms231810556
work_keys_str_mv AT frankeldiane comparisonbetweenimmunocytochemistryfishandngsforalkandros1rearrangementdetectionincytologicalsamples
AT nanniisabelle comparisonbetweenimmunocytochemistryfishandngsforalkandros1rearrangementdetectionincytologicalsamples
AT ouafiklhoucine comparisonbetweenimmunocytochemistryfishandngsforalkandros1rearrangementdetectionincytologicalsamples
AT camillaclara comparisonbetweenimmunocytochemistryfishandngsforalkandros1rearrangementdetectionincytologicalsamples
AT pellegrinoeric comparisonbetweenimmunocytochemistryfishandngsforalkandros1rearrangementdetectionincytologicalsamples
AT beaufilsnathalie comparisonbetweenimmunocytochemistryfishandngsforalkandros1rearrangementdetectionincytologicalsamples
AT greillierlaurent comparisonbetweenimmunocytochemistryfishandngsforalkandros1rearrangementdetectionincytologicalsamples
AT dutauherve comparisonbetweenimmunocytochemistryfishandngsforalkandros1rearrangementdetectionincytologicalsamples
AT astoulphilippe comparisonbetweenimmunocytochemistryfishandngsforalkandros1rearrangementdetectionincytologicalsamples
AT kaspielise comparisonbetweenimmunocytochemistryfishandngsforalkandros1rearrangementdetectionincytologicalsamples
AT rollpatrice comparisonbetweenimmunocytochemistryfishandngsforalkandros1rearrangementdetectionincytologicalsamples