Thoracic cancer · 2021
A novel break site of EML4-ALK report and a rare PRKAR1A-ALK report analyzed by different ALK detection platforms in non-small cell lung cancer patients.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Du Xue, Zhang Jun, Gao Hongjun, Tai Yanhong
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: detection of anaplastic lymphoma receptor tyrosine kinase gene (ALK) rearrangements in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has become a routine pathological diagnosis worldwide.
METHODS: there are three major conventional diagnostic methods for ALK fusions: fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH); immunohistochemistry (Ventana IHC (D5F3)); and polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Next-generation sequencing (NGS) technology as is a new tool for ALK status detection with great potential. These four methods are highly consistent in detecting ALK status (coincidence rate >96%). However, discrepancies in ALK status have been found in some patients among these methods, which causes confusion for clinicians.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: in this study, we analyzed two patients whose ALK statuses were not consistent using these four methods. We explored the potential reasons for deviation of the test results and found a novel EML4-ALK break site, which had been not described previously.
METHODS: there are three major conventional diagnostic methods for ALK fusions: fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH); immunohistochemistry (Ventana IHC (D5F3)); and polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Next-generation sequencing (NGS) technology as is a new tool for ALK status detection with great potential. These four methods are highly consistent in detecting ALK status (coincidence rate >96%). However, discrepancies in ALK status have been found in some patients among these methods, which causes confusion for clinicians.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: in this study, we analyzed two patients whose ALK statuses were not consistent using these four methods. We explored the potential reasons for deviation of the test results and found a novel EML4-ALK break site, which had been not described previously.