Cantú Eduardo S, Dong Henry, Forsyth David R, Espinoza Froilan P, Papenhausen Peter R
Integrated Oncology, Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, Phoenix, AZ, USA
Integrated Oncology, Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, New York, NY, USA.
Ann Clin Lab Sci. 2018 May;48(3):264-272.
Conventional cytogenetic and routine I-FISH (interphase fluorescence in-situ hybridization) studies periodically present discrepant results on the same sample calling into question their validity. Generally it is expected that these tests confirm each other, otherwise there is concern that they may represent laboratory error. We present data showing that these discrepant results are rarely due to laboratory error, and that M-FISH (metaphase fluorescence in-situ hybridization) can usually reconcile them by identifying the nature of these differences. This report includes 32 bone marrow (BM) samples from patients with hematologic neoplasms that showed incongruent cytogenetic/I-FISH results. M-FISH was selectively applied for further clarification of these discrepancies when deemed necessary. This study evaluated BM samples in our laboratory (Integrated Oncology, Phoenix, AZ) that represented 5 major categories of hematologic disorders (MDS/AML, MPN, NHL, CLL, & PCN). Five general categories of these cases were identified: 1) laboratory error (clerical), 2) limited resolution of testing methods, 3) cellular response to culture/preparative conditions, 4) cytogenetic bi-clonality and 5) failed hybridizations due to cover-slipping. Our results suggest that the majority of discrepant results are related to the intrinsic nature of the malignant cells (and how they respond to their growth environment) evaluated by these two testing methods.
传统的细胞遗传学和常规间期荧光原位杂交(I-FISH)研究,在对同一样本进行检测时,结果经常出现不一致的情况,这让人质疑它们的有效性。通常人们期望这些检测结果能相互印证,否则就会担心可能存在实验室误差。我们提供的数据表明,这些不一致的结果很少是由实验室误差导致的,而且中期荧光原位杂交(M-FISH)通常能够通过识别这些差异的本质来协调这些结果。本报告纳入了32例血液系统肿瘤患者的骨髓(BM)样本,这些样本的细胞遗传学/I-FISH结果不一致。必要时,会选择性地应用M-FISH来进一步澄清这些差异。本研究评估了我们实验室(亚利桑那州凤凰城综合肿瘤学实验室)的BM样本,这些样本代表了5大类血液系统疾病(骨髓增生异常综合征/急性髓系白血病、骨髓增殖性肿瘤、非霍奇金淋巴瘤、慢性淋巴细胞白血病和浆细胞肿瘤)。这些病例可分为5大类:1)实验室误差(文书工作方面),2)检测方法分辨率有限,3)细胞对培养/制备条件的反应,4)细胞遗传学双克隆性,5)由于盖玻片覆盖导致杂交失败。我们的结果表明,大多数不一致的结果与这两种检测方法所评估的恶性细胞的内在性质(以及它们对生长环境的反应方式)有关。