Comparison of Diagnostic Yield Among M-FISH, FISH Probe Panel and Conventional Cytogenetic Analysis in AML

Conventional cytogenetic studies have been the gold standard for more than five decades for detecting genetic alterations that are greater than 10 Mb (mega base pairs) in size. Conventional cytogenetic studies have paved the way in identifying specific chromosomal aberrations associated with clinically and morphologically definitive subsets of hematological neoplasms. Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) has become a reliable and rapid complementary test in targeting critical genetic events associated with diagnostics and prognosis in hematological neoplasms. In the current health care environment, which increasingly focuses on value and efficiency, it is critical for pathologists and clinicians to effectively navigate this environment and judiciously incorporate these high-complexity and expensive techniques into routine patient care. While conventional karyotyping provides a comprehensive view of the genome, FISH can detect cryptic or submicroscopic genetic abnormalities and identify recurrent genetic abnormalities in nondividing cells. As a consequence, it is commonly extrapolated that FISH will improve the sensitivity of detecting all genetic abnormalities compared with conventional karyotyping analysis. This assumption has then been translated in clinical practice to having clinicians and pathologists routinely ordering both conventional karyotyping and FISH studies in patients with hematological neoplasms. Depending on how comprehensive the FISH panel is, the cost for this testing may be quite expensive, and its additive value remains questionable. It is common practice for laboratories to use FISH panels in conjunction with karyotyping both in diagnostic specimens and during follow-up to monitor response to therapy. Multiplex FISH (M-FISH) represents one of the most significant developments in molecular cytogenetics of the past decade. In tumor and leukemia cytogenetics, two groups have been targeted by M-FISH to identify cryptic chromosome rearrangements not detectable by conventional cytogenetic studies: those with an apparently normal karyotype (suspected of harboring small rearrangements not detectable by conventional cytogenetics) and those with a complex aberrant karyotype (which are difficult to karyotype accurately due to the sheer number of aberrations).

Sex

All

Minimum age

18 Years

Inclusion criteria:

1. Patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia.
2. Age group: patients more than 18 years old.

Exclusion criteria:

1. Patients less than 18 years old.
2. Patients with other types of hematologic neoplasms.
3. Relapsed patients.

• BACKGROUNDAshok V, Ranganathan R, Chander S, Damodar S, Bhat S, S NK, A SK, Jadav SS, Rajashekaraiah M, T S S. Comparison of Diagnostic Yield of a FISH Panel Against Conventional Cytogenetic Studies for Hematological Malignancies: A South Indian Referral Laboratory Analysis Of 201 Cases. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2017 Dec 29;18(12):3457-3464. doi: 10.22034/APJCP.2017.18.12.3457. PMID 29286619
• BACKGROUNDCantu ES, Dong H, Forsyth DR, Espinoza FP, Papenhausen PR. Discrepant Cytogenetic and Interphase Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization (I-FISH) Results from Bone Marrow Specimens of Patients with Hematologic Neoplasms. Ann Clin Lab Sci. 2018 May;48(3):264-272. PMID 29970427
• BACKGROUNDHe R, Wiktor AE, Hanson CA, Ketterling RP, Kurtin PJ, Van Dyke DL, Litzow MR, Howard MT, Reichard KK. Conventional karyotyping and fluorescence in situ hybridization: an effective utilization strategy in diagnostic adult acute myeloid leukemia. Am J Clin Pathol. 2015 Jun;143(6):873-8. doi: 10.1309/AJCPP6LVMQG4LNCK. PMID 25972330
• BACKGROUNDKearney L. Multiplex-FISH (M-FISH): technique, developments and applications. Cytogenet Genome Res. 2006;114(3-4):189-98. doi: 10.1159/000094202. PMID 16954655
• BACKGROUNDKokate P, Dalvi R, Koppaka N, Mandava S. Prognostic classification of MDS is improved by the inclusion of FISH panel testing with conventional cytogenetics. Cancer Genet. 2017 Oct;216-217:120-127. doi: 10.1016/j.cancergen.2017.05.004. Epub 2017 Aug 16. PMID 29025586
• BACKGROUNDMohr B, Bornhauser M, Thiede C, Schakel U, Schaich M, Illmer T, Pascheberg U, Ehninger G. Comparison of spectral karyotyping and conventional cytogenetics in 39 patients with acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndrome. Leukemia. 2000 Jun;14(6):1031-8. doi: 10.1038/sj.leu.2401775. PMID 10865969
• BACKGROUNDPeterson JF, Aggarwal N, Smith CA, Gollin SM, Surti U, Rajkovic A, Swerdlow SH, Yatsenko SA. Integration of microarray analysis into the clinical diagnosis of hematological malignancies: How much can we improve cytogenetic testing? Oncotarget. 2015 Aug 7;6(22):18845-62. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.4586.