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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |