van der Linden J C, Herman C J, Boenders J G, van de Sandt M M, Lindeman J
Department of Pathology, Free University Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Cytometry. 1992;13(2):163-8. doi: 10.1002/cyto.990130209.
Studies concerning flow cytometric assessed DNA content reveal problems in interpretating DNA histograms of tumor specimens. The main problems are histograms with a broad coefficient of variation in the G0/G1 fraction; a high G2M fraction and samples with a low percentage of tumor cells. Therefore, in the present study, 382 fresh tumor specimens of carcinomas were analysed routinely, double labeled with, on the one hand, propidium-iodide for assessing DNA content and, on the other, a monoclonal keratin-antibody for marking epithelial and tumor cells. Of the 311 tumor samples, using single parameter analysis 165 (54%) were classified as DNA aneuploid and 146 (46%) as DNA "euploid." By double parameter analysis, 224 (72%) samples were keratin positive and 87 (27%) keratin negative and, of the 224 keratin positive tumors, 175 (78%) were DNA aneuploid and 49 (22%) DNA euploid. The DNA histograms of single and double parameter analysis were compared and it was concluded that in 24 cases (11%) keratin labeling was necessary to recognize DNA aneuploidy. In another 23 (10%) cases, keratin labeling was helpful in assessing DNA aneuploidy. Finally when the results of the 311 samples were combined, 215 (68%) were scored as DNA aneuploid and 99 (32%) DNA euploid. Thus the overall gain in assessing DNA aneuploidy using the double labeling technique is 14%. In conclusion, it is shown that keratin labeling on fresh tumor cell suspensions of epithelial tumors is of additional value in establishing DNA content. Because single parameter DNA assessment is adequate in approximately 60% of the tested samples, the double labeling technique can be performed routinely, or after initial single parameter DNA assessment. Histograms having a broad CV and/or a high G2M are good candidates for the double labeling technique. Using this technique, DNA-content assessment becomes more reliable.
关于流式细胞术评估DNA含量的研究揭示了在解读肿瘤标本的DNA直方图时存在的问题。主要问题包括G0/G1期细胞系数变异范围较宽的直方图、高G2M期细胞比例以及肿瘤细胞比例较低的样本。因此,在本研究中,对382例新鲜癌组织标本进行了常规分析,一方面用碘化丙啶双标记以评估DNA含量,另一方面用单克隆角蛋白抗体标记上皮细胞和肿瘤细胞。在311个肿瘤样本中,采用单参数分析,165个(54%)被分类为DNA非整倍体,146个(46%)为DNA“整倍体”。通过双参数分析,224个(72%)样本角蛋白呈阳性,87个(27%)角蛋白呈阴性,在224个角蛋白阳性肿瘤中,175个(78%)为DNA非整倍体,49个(22%)为DNA整倍体。比较了单参数分析和双参数分析的DNA直方图,得出结论:在24例(11%)中,角蛋白标记对于识别DNA非整倍体是必要的。在另外23例(10%)中,角蛋白标记有助于评估DNA非整倍体。最后,当合并311个样本的结果时,215个(68%)被判定为DNA非整倍体,99个(32%)为DNA整倍体。因此,使用双标记技术评估DNA非整倍体的总体增益为14%。总之,研究表明,在上皮性肿瘤的新鲜肿瘤细胞悬液上进行角蛋白标记在确定DNA含量方面具有附加价值。由于大约60%的测试样本中,单参数DNA评估就足够了,双标记技术可以常规进行,或者在初始单参数DNA评估之后进行。变异系数较宽和/或G2M期细胞比例较高的直方图是双标记技术的良好候选对象。使用该技术,DNA含量评估变得更加可靠。