American journal of clinical pathology · 2024
Superior detection rate of plasma cell FISH using FACS-FISH.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
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.
Gagnon Marie-France, Midthun Sally M, Fangel James A, Schuh Cynthia M, Luoma Ivy M, Pearce Kathryn E, Meyer Reid G, Ailawadhi Sikander, Arribas Mariano J, Braggio Esteban, Fonseca Rafael, Rajkumar S Vincent, Zepeda-Mendoza Cinthya, Xu Xinjie, Greipp Patricia T, Timm Michael M, Otteson Gregory E, Shi Min, Jevremovic Dragan, Olteanu Horatiu, Peterson Jess F, Ketterling Rhett P, Kumar Shaji, Baughn Linda B
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) for plasma cell neoplasms (PCNs) requires plasma cell (PC) identification or purification strategies to optimize results. We compared the efficacy of cytoplasmic immunoglobulin FISH (cIg-FISH) and fluorescence-activated cell sorting FISH (FACS-FISH) in a clinical laboratory setting.
METHODS: The FISH analysis results of 14,855 samples from individuals with a suspected PCN subjected to cytogenetic evaluation between 2019 and 2022 with cIg-FISH (n = 6917) or FACS-FISH (n = 7938) testing were analyzed.
RESULTS: Fluorescence-activated cell sorting-FISH increased the detection rate of abnormalities in comparison with cIg-FISH, with abnormal results documented in 54% vs 50% of cases, respectively (P < .001). It improved the detection of IGH::CCND1 (P < .001), IGH::MAF (P < .001), IGH::MAFB (P < .001), other IGH rearrangements (P < .001), and gains/amplifications of 1q (P < .001), whereas the detection rates of IGH::FGFR3 fusions (P = .3), loss of 17p (P = .3), and other abnormalities, including hyperdiploidy (P = .5), were similar. Insufficient PC yield for FISH analysis was decreased between cIg-FISH and FACS-FISH (22% and 3% respectively, P < .001). Flow cytometry allowed establishment of ploidy status in 91% of cases. In addition, FACS-FISH decreased analysis times, workload efforts, and operating costs.
CONCLUSIONS: Fluorescence-activated cell sorting-FISH is an efficient PC purification strategy that affords significant improvement in diagnostic yield and decreases workflow requirements in comparison with cIg-FISH.
METHODS: The FISH analysis results of 14,855 samples from individuals with a suspected PCN subjected to cytogenetic evaluation between 2019 and 2022 with cIg-FISH (n = 6917) or FACS-FISH (n = 7938) testing were analyzed.
RESULTS: Fluorescence-activated cell sorting-FISH increased the detection rate of abnormalities in comparison with cIg-FISH, with abnormal results documented in 54% vs 50% of cases, respectively (P < .001). It improved the detection of IGH::CCND1 (P < .001), IGH::MAF (P < .001), IGH::MAFB (P < .001), other IGH rearrangements (P < .001), and gains/amplifications of 1q (P < .001), whereas the detection rates of IGH::FGFR3 fusions (P = .3), loss of 17p (P = .3), and other abnormalities, including hyperdiploidy (P = .5), were similar. Insufficient PC yield for FISH analysis was decreased between cIg-FISH and FACS-FISH (22% and 3% respectively, P < .001). Flow cytometry allowed establishment of ploidy status in 91% of cases. In addition, FACS-FISH decreased analysis times, workload efforts, and operating costs.
CONCLUSIONS: Fluorescence-activated cell sorting-FISH is an efficient PC purification strategy that affords significant improvement in diagnostic yield and decreases workflow requirements in comparison with cIg-FISH.