Wersto R P, Liblit R L, Koss L G
Department of Pathology, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, New York 10467.
Hum Pathol. 1991 Nov;22(11):1085-98. doi: 10.1016/0046-8177(91)90260-v.
A survey of over 225 recent studies examining the relationship between the flow cytometric DNA analysis of solid tumors and clinical prognosis indicates that criteria used to classify DNA histograms are variable and often inconsistent with the recommendations proposed by the Convention on Nomenclature for DNA Cytometry. Numerous reports not only lack unambiguous descriptions of the histogram features used to differentiate diploid from aneuploid DNA distributions, but also inadequately describe the technical aspects of data acquisition, standardization, and inclusion or exclusion of subpopulations by gating. In many cases, the coefficient of variation of the diploid and aneuploid G0/1 peaks, which would allow an assessment of histogram quality, is not reported. Because of the differences in DNA histogram interpretation, extrapolation of the results among laboratories may be difficult and is probably not reliable. This review summarizes the criteria that have been used to classify the DNA histograms and illustrates the effects of these different classifiers on DNA ploidy analysis and clinical conclusions.
一项针对225项以上近期研究的调查，这些研究探讨了实体瘤的流式细胞术DNA分析与临床预后之间的关系，结果表明，用于对DNA直方图进行分类的标准各不相同，且常常与《DNA细胞计量学命名公约》提出的建议不一致。许多报告不仅缺乏用于区分二倍体与非整倍体DNA分布的直方图特征的明确描述，而且对数据采集、标准化以及通过设门选择亚群的纳入或排除等技术方面的描述也不够充分。在许多情况下，未报告可用于评估直方图质量的二倍体和非整倍体G0/1峰的变异系数。由于DNA直方图解释存在差异，各实验室之间的结果外推可能困难且可能不可靠。本综述总结了用于对DNA直方图进行分类的标准，并说明了这些不同分类方法对DNA倍性分析和临床结论的影响。
