Koduru Prasad, Chen Weina, Fuda Franklin, Kaur Gurbakhash, Awan Farrukh, John Samuel, Garcia Rolando, Gagan Jeffrey
Departments of Pathology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA.
Internal Medicine (Division of Oncology), UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA.
Clin Pathol. 2024 Feb 16;17:2632010X241230262. doi: 10.1177/2632010X241230262. eCollection 2024 Jan-Dec.
Fluorescence labeled DNA probes and in situ hybridization methods had shorter turn round time for results revolutionized their clinical application. Signals obtained from these probes are highly specific, yet they can produce fusion signals not necessarily representing fusion of actual genes due to other genes included in the probe design. In this study we evaluated discordance between cytogenetic, FISH and RNAseq results in 3 different patients with hematologic malignancies and illustrated the need to perform next generation sequencing (NGS) or RNASeq to accurately interpret FISH results.
Bone marrow or peripheral blood karyotypes and FISH were performed to detect recurring translocations associated with hematologic malignancies in clinical samples routinely referred to our clinical cytogenetics laboratory. When required, NGS was performed on DNA and RNA libraries to detect somatic alterations and gene fusions in some of these specimens. Discordance in results between these methods is further evaluated.
For a patient with plasma cell leukemia standard / dual fusion FISH assay detected fusion that was interpreted as -positive leukemia, whereas NGS/RNASeq detected . For a pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia patient, a genetic diagnosis of -positive ALL was rendered because the break-apart probe detected clonal rearrangement, whereas NGS detected . A -positive B-prolymphocytic leukemia was rendered for another patient with a cytogenetically identified t(8;14) and by FISH, whereas NGS detected a novel not previously reported.
These are 3 cases in a series of several other concordant results, nevertheless, elucidate limitations when interpreting FISH results in clinical applications, particularly when other genes are included in probe design. In addition, when the observed FISH signals are atypical, this study illustrates the necessity to perform complementary laboratory assays, such as NGS and/or RNASeq, to accurately identify fusion genes in tumorigenic translocations.
荧光标记的DNA探针和原位杂交方法结果周转时间较短,彻底改变了它们的临床应用。从这些探针获得的信号具有高度特异性,但由于探针设计中包含其他基因,它们可能产生不一定代表实际基因融合的融合信号。在本研究中,我们评估了3例不同血液系统恶性肿瘤患者的细胞遗传学、荧光原位杂交(FISH)和RNA测序结果之间的不一致性,并说明了进行下一代测序(NGS)或RNA测序以准确解释FISH结果的必要性。
对常规送至我们临床细胞遗传学实验室的临床样本进行骨髓或外周血核型分析和FISH,以检测与血液系统恶性肿瘤相关的复发性易位。如有需要,对一些样本的DNA和RNA文库进行NGS,以检测体细胞改变和基因融合。进一步评估这些方法之间结果的不一致性。
对于一名浆细胞白血病患者,标准/双融合FISH检测到的融合被解释为阳性白血病,而NGS/RNA测序检测到 。对于一名儿童急性淋巴细胞白血病患者,由于断裂探针检测到克隆重排,做出了阳性急性淋巴细胞白血病的基因诊断,而NGS检测到 。另一名细胞遗传学鉴定为t(8;14)且FISH检测为 的患者被诊断为阳性B原淋巴细胞白血病,而NGS检测到一个先前未报道的新 。
这些是一系列其他结果一致的病例中的3例,然而,阐明了在临床应用中解释FISH结果时的局限性,特别是当探针设计中包含其他基因时。此外,当观察到的FISH信号不典型时,本研究说明了进行补充实验室检测(如NGS和/或RNA测序)以准确识别致瘤易位中的融合基因的必要性。