Home | About us | Editorial board | Search | Ahead of print | Current issue | Archives | Submit article | Instructions | Subscribe | Advertise | Contacts | Login 
  Users Online: 852 Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2019  |  Volume : 9  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 55-60

Comparative assessment of conventional chromosomal analysis and fluorescence in situ hybridization in the evaluation of suspected myelodysplastic syndromes: A single institution experience


1 Division of Hematopathology, Barbara Ann Karmanos Center and Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, MI, USA
2 Division of Hematology/Oncology, Barbara Ann Karmanos Center and Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, MI, USA
3 Division of Cytogenetics, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, USA

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Ali M Gabali
3990, John R Street, Detroit, Michigan 48201
USA
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/AJM.AJM_183_18

Rights and Permissions

Background: Myelodysplastic syndromes (MDSs) are a heterogeneous group of clonal hematopoietic neoplasms, roughly half of which harbor cytogenetic abnormalities with diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic significance. Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) for the most commonly seen abnormalities (5/5q, –7/7q, +8, and –20/20q–) is routinely performed alongside conventional cytogenetics (CC) in the evaluation of suspected MDS despite conflicting reports of its relative contribution compared to CC alone.Objectives: To assess the additional diagnostic and prognostic value of performing concurrent FISH versus CC alone in cases of suspected MDS.Materials and Methods: A total of 127 bone marrow samples submitted to our cytogenetic laboratory with a presumptive diagnosis of MDS were evaluated by concurrent CC and an MDS FISH panel.Results: CC was used as the gold standard method with 100% sensitivity in detecting suspected MDS-associated cytogenetic abnormalities. FISH alone had a sensitivity of 76%, whereas CC alone achieved a sensitivity of 97%. The addition of FISH did not change the diagnosis nor change the Revised International Prognostic Scoring System score in any patient. Moreover, in 12 cases identified as positive by both CC and FISH, CC identified multiple chromosomal aberrations of clinical significance not interrogated by the FISH probe panel.Conclusion: CC alone is sufficiently sensitive in detecting suspected MDS-associated cytogenetic abnormalities that influence clinical decision-making. Routine FISH testing does not provide a significant increase in test sensitivity when an adequate karyotype is obtained. Therefore, FISH testing is best reserved for suspected MDS cases lacking sufficient metaphases.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed672    
    Printed46    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded110    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal