Australian and New Zealand journal of medicine · 1999
Correlation of cytogenetics, BCR-ABL PCR studies and fluorescence in situ hybridisation (FISH) in adult acute lymphoblastic leukaemia.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАПоддержка правительства СШАОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Campbell L J, Martinow A, Michael P M, White J S, Rayeroux K C, Januszewicz E H
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Philadelphia positive (Ph+) acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL) accounts for 11-29% of adult ALL. Reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for the BCR-ABL fusion mRNA has identified patients with the fusion mRNA without cytogenetic evidence of the 9;22 translocation. The reason for discrepancies between cytogenetic and molecular diagnoses is unclear.
AIM: Our aim was to study cases of ALL with discordant cytogenetic and RT-PCR results and identify any reasons for such discrepancies.
METHODS: Laboratory records were scanned for cases of ALL tested by both RT-PCR and cytogenetics and positive by either for the 9;22 translocation. Fluorescence in situ hybridisation (FISH) was used to study discordant results where a specimen was available.
RESULTS: We identified 15 patients with ALL who had both cytogenetic and RT-PCR studies for BCR-ABL. Seven had discordant results; five patients had positive RT-PCR studies with normal (four/five) or abnormal but Ph negative cytogenetics (one/five), and two were Ph+ but RT-PCR negative. FISH, using Vysis LSI bcr/abl translocation probes, showed fused signals in 12% interphase cells but not in metaphase cells in one specimen with normal cytogenetics, and 6% interphase cells in the Ph negative patient with abnormal cytogenetics. This second patient subsequently relapsed with a minor Ph+ cell line derived from the Ph negative line.
CONCLUSIONS: These results confirmed the need for both cytogenetics and RT-PCR to identify Ph+ ALL. FISH did not show sub-microscopic rearrangements of BCR-ABL in normal metaphases. Failure to identify the Philadelphia chromosome cytogenetically appeared due rather to Ph+ cells failing to divide.
AIM: Our aim was to study cases of ALL with discordant cytogenetic and RT-PCR results and identify any reasons for such discrepancies.
METHODS: Laboratory records were scanned for cases of ALL tested by both RT-PCR and cytogenetics and positive by either for the 9;22 translocation. Fluorescence in situ hybridisation (FISH) was used to study discordant results where a specimen was available.
RESULTS: We identified 15 patients with ALL who had both cytogenetic and RT-PCR studies for BCR-ABL. Seven had discordant results; five patients had positive RT-PCR studies with normal (four/five) or abnormal but Ph negative cytogenetics (one/five), and two were Ph+ but RT-PCR negative. FISH, using Vysis LSI bcr/abl translocation probes, showed fused signals in 12% interphase cells but not in metaphase cells in one specimen with normal cytogenetics, and 6% interphase cells in the Ph negative patient with abnormal cytogenetics. This second patient subsequently relapsed with a minor Ph+ cell line derived from the Ph negative line.
CONCLUSIONS: These results confirmed the need for both cytogenetics and RT-PCR to identify Ph+ ALL. FISH did not show sub-microscopic rearrangements of BCR-ABL in normal metaphases. Failure to identify the Philadelphia chromosome cytogenetically appeared due rather to Ph+ cells failing to divide.