Vladimira Sulcova

A FISH Study of Variant Philadelphia Rearrangements

A total of 39 variant Philadelphia (Ph) translocations were studied by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) using MBCR/ABL, mBCR/ABL, or DBCR/ABL probes. Seven cases did not have a BCR/ABL fusion signal. Of a total of 32 fusion-positive cases, 5 were simple variants involving chromosome 22 and another chromosome apart from chromosome 9; 23 were complex variants involving chromosomes 22, 9, and a third chromosome (18 cases), or 22, 9, and two other chromosomes (4 cases). Masked Ph rearrangements were detected in 4 cases. One case was a Ph chromosome mimic. Fluorescence in situ hybridization has become a widely used method for studying Ph rearrangements. The latest probe that is being used is the DBCR/ABL (double reciprocal BCR/ABL signals). The expected pattern for this probe is one green ABL signal (1G) on the normal 9, one red BCR signal (1R) on the normal 22, and two fusion signals, BCR/ABL and ABL/BCR (2F), on a derivative 22 and a derivative 9, respectively. Deviant patterns from 1G1R2F, and sometimes 1G1R2F, were indicative of a variant, as long as there was a fusion signal. However, in interphase analysis, it is not possible to visualize a variant rearrangement, and when a deviant pattern involving at least one fusion signal is observed, the following possibilities should be contemplated. The different patterns observed in fifteen Ph variants are described. The patterns observed in variants studied with the DBCR/ABL probe were 2G2R1F (40%), 1G1R2F (20%), 1G1R1F (20%), 1G2R1F (13.3%), and 2G1R1F (6.66%). A single mechanism is involved in the formation of each of these patterns. A 2G2R1F, FISH pattern in 6 cases appears to involve a single concerted event of simultaneous breaks on the participating chromosomes followed by mismatched joining. The three cases with 1G1R2F most probably arose by two sequential rearrangements. The 1G1R1F pattern suggests that either the BCR and ABL breakpoints are different, or there are deletions at the breakpoints, because residual signals are not observed. Two independent events appear to be involved in 1G2R1F with a reverse cryptic 9,22 rearrangement as the first event. In one case of 2G1R1F, the plausible explanation is an insertion of ABL next to BCR and either a simultaneous or a sequential translocation with another chromosome.

Fluorescence in situ hybridization and K-ras analyses improve diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of solid pancreatic masses.

Objectives: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) is the main diagnostic modality for pancreatic mass lesions. However, cytology is often indeterminate, leading to repeat FNAs and delay in care. Here, we evaluate whether combining routine cytology with fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and K-ras/p53 analyses improves diagnostic yield of pancreatic EUS-FNA. Methods: Fifty EUS-FNAs of pancreatic masses in 46 patients were retrospectively analyzed. Mean follow-up was 68 months. Thirteen initial cytologic samples (26%) were benign, 23 malignant (46%), and 14 atypical (28%). We performed FISH for p16, p53, LPL, c-Myc, MALT1, topoisomerase 2/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2, and EGFR, as well as K-ras/p53 mutational analyses. Results: On final diagnosis, 11 (79%) of atypical FNAs were malignant, and 3 benign (21%). Fluorescence in situ hybridization was negative in all benign and all atypical samples with final benign diagnosis. Fluorescence in situ hybridization plus K-ras analysis correctly identified 60% of atypical FNAs with final malignant diagnosis. Combination of routine cytology with positive FISH and K-ras analyses yielded 87.9% sensitivity, 93.8% specificity, 96.7% positive predictive value, 78.9% negative predictive value, and 89.8% accuracy. Conclusions: Combining routine cytology with FISH and K-ras analyses improves diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA of solid pancreatic masses. We propose to include these ancillary tests in the workup of atypical cytology from pancreatic EUS-FNA.Abbreviations: EUS - endoscopic ultrasound, FNA - fine-needle aspiration, FISH - fluorescence in situ hybridization, EGFR - epidermal growth factor receptor, HER2 - human epidermal growth factor receptor 2, TOP2 - topoisomerase 2

c-myc amplification in a preleukemia patient with trisomy 4 and double minutes: review of the unique coexistence of these two chromosome abnormalities in acute myelogenous leukemia.

Cytogenetic analysis of the bone marrow from a woman with preleukemia showed an aberrant clone with trisomy 4, double minutes, and a translocation t(8;9)(q21;q34). Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) demonstrated that the double minutes were c-myc amplifications. A review of six cases in the literature and the present case with trisomy 4 and double minutes showed a preponderance of females and that the patients were mostly elderly. The acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) in these patients was either FAB subtype M2 or M4. In two out of seven cases, the double minutes were c-myc amplicons. The patients responded to treatment and there was karyotypic normalization during remission. There was no strong evidence of exposure to genotoxic agents.

Mosaic tetrasomy 8q: Inverted duplication of 8q23.3qter in an analphoid marker

We observed an analphoid marker chromosome stable through cell division in a 16-year-old girl with developmental delay, short stature, limb contractures, and ovaries containing multiple cysts. She also developed myasthenia gravis at 15 years. The marker chromosome, present in 75% of metaphases (and in 90% of transformed lymphoblastoid cells), was C-band negative, and had no pan alpha-satellite sequences detectable by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). The 8q origin of the marker was determined by use of subtelomeric probes and was confirmed by chromosome 8 painting probes. The marker was shown to be an inversion duplication of 8q when subtelomeric, telomeric, and c-myc FISH probes hybridized to both ends of the marker. The karyotype was 47,XX,+inv dup(8)(qter--> q23.3::q23.3-->[neocen]-->qter), resulting in tetrasomy for 8q23.3qter. The parents had normal karyotypes. Centromeric proteins CENP-C and CENP-E were present, but alpha associated centromere protein CENP-B was absent at a position defining a neocentromere.

Spectral Karyotyping for identification of constitutional chromosomal abnormalities at a national reference laboratory

Spectral karyotyping is a diagnostic tool that allows visualization of chromosomes in different colors using the FISH technology and a spectral imaging system. To assess the value of spectral karyotyping analysis for identifying constitutional supernumerary marker chromosomes or derivative chromosomes at a national reference laboratory, we reviewed the results of 179 consecutive clinical samples (31 prenatal and 148 postnatal) submitted for spectral karyotyping. Over 90% of the cases were requested to identify either small supernumerary marker chromosomes (sSMCs) or chromosomal exchange material detected by G-banded chromosome analysis. We also reviewed clinical indications of those cases with marker chromosomes in which chromosomal origin was identified by spectral karyotyping. Our results showed that spectral karyotyping identified the chromosomal origin of marker chromosomes or the source of derivative chromosomal material in 158 (88%) of the 179 clinical cases; the identification rate was slightly higher for postnatal (89%) compared to prenatal (84%) cases. Cases in which the origin could not be identified had either a small marker chromosome present at a very low level of mosaicism (< 10%), or contained very little euchromatic material. Supplemental FISH analysis confirmed the spectral karyotyping results in all 158 cases. Clinical indications for prenatal cases were mainly for marker identification after amniocentesis. For postnatal cases, the primary indications were developmental delay and multiple congenital anomalies (MCA). The most frequently encountered markers were of chromosome 15 origin for satellited chromosomes, and chromosomes 2 and 16 for non-satellited chromosomes. We were able to obtain pertinent clinical information for 47% (41/88) of cases with an identified abnormal chromosome. We conclude that spectral karyotyping is sufficiently reliable for use and provides a valuable diagnostic tool for establishing the origin of supernumerary marker chromosomes or derivative chromosomal material that cannot be identified with standard cytogenetic techniques.

Molecular combing compared to Southern blot for measuring D4Z4 contractions in FSHD

We compare molecular combing to Southern blot in the analysis of the facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy type 1 locus (FSHD1) on chromosome 4q35-qter (chr 4q) in genomic DNA specimens sent to a clinical laboratory for FSHD testing. A de-identified set of 87 genomic DNA specimens determined by Southern blot as normal (n = 71), abnormal with D4Z4 macrosatellite repeat array contractions (n = 7), indeterminate (n = 6), borderline (n = 2), or mosaic (n = 1) was independently re-analyzed by molecular combing in a blinded fashion. The molecular combing results were identical to the Southern blot results in 75 (86%) of cases. All contractions (n = 7) and mosaics (n = 1) detected by Southern blot were confirmed by molecular combing. Of the 71 samples with normal Southern blot results, 67 (94%) had concordant molecular combing results. The four discrepancies were either mosaic (n = 2), rearranged (n = 1), or borderline by molecular combing (n = 1). All indeterminate Southern blot results (n = 6) were resolved by molecular combing as either normal (n = 4), borderline (n = 1), or rearranged (n = 1). The two borderline Southern blot results showed a D4Z4 contraction on the chr 4qA allele and a normal result by molecular combing. Molecular combing overcomes a number of technical limitations of Southern blot by providing direct visualization of D4Z4 macrosatellite repeat arrays on specific chr 4q and chr 10q alleles and more precise D4Z4 repeat sizing. This study suggests that molecular combing has superior analytical validity compared to Southern blot for determining D4Z4 contraction size, detecting mosaicism, and resolving borderline and indeterminate Southern blot results. Further studies are needed to establish the clinical validity and diagnostic accuracy of these findings in FSHD.

De novo mosaic add(3) characterized to be trisomy 14q31-qter using spectral karyotyping and subtelomeric probes.

We describe a 19-year-old patient with a de novo mosaic add(3) chromosome (extra material of unknown origin on the 3q). The use of spectral karyotyping and fluorescence in situ hybridization using subtelomeric probes permitted the full characterization of the cytogenetic abnormality. The additional material on 3q was found to originate from 14q31-qter. This is one of the few reported cases with trisomy 14q31-qter and is the first mosaic case.

Abstract 4675: Detection of ALK, ROS1, and RET translocations in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients by intragenic differential expression analysis

BACKGROUND: ALK, ROS1, and RET translocations are frequently detected in NSCLC patients. Crizotinib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), was approved by the FDA in 2011 to treat NSCLC in patients harboring ALK translocations as detected by an FDA-approved assay. However, the FDA-approved ALK FISH assay is technically challenging, with failures due to pre-analytic variables. Another approach, intragenic differential expression (IDE), detects translocations by comparing expression levels of the 5′ end with the 3′ end of target gene transcripts. In this study we developed and evaluated a rapid IDE assay to screen for ALK, ROS1, and RET translocations, independent of the fusion partner. METHODS: A total of 419 samples (408 randomly-selected NSCLC clinical samples, ALK positive and ROS1 positive cell lines (2 each), and 7 previously-tested RET-positive clinical samples) were used to develop and evaluate performance characteristics of the IDE assays. To determine IDE scores, levels of ALK, ROS1, and RET expression were first determined by quantitative RT-PCR measurement of the 5′- and 3′- ends of the respective transcripts. The differences in expression levels were calculated as ΔCt (Ct5′ - Ct3′). High ΔCt values indicate presumptive presence of gene translocations. 212/408 NSCLC samples were analyzed by ALK FISH and EML4-ALK RT-PCR, and 196/408 samples were analyzed by EML4-ALK RT-PCR. RESULTS: Thirty-one of the 408 (7.6%) clinical samples tested positive for ALK rearrangements by IDE. Among them, 20 were confirmed by FISH and/or EML4-ALK (true positive, 64.5%), while 11 were negative by FISH and/or EML4-ALK (false positive, 35.5%). One of 10 ALK FISH positive samples tested negative by both ALK IDE and EML4-ALK RT-PCR analysis (false negative), while one of 202 FISH-negative sample tested positive by both EML4-ALK and ALK IDE. ALK IDE exhibited 94.5% (189/200) concordance with ALK FISH and 96.0% (356/371) concordance with the EML4-ALK assay. For ROS1, both ROS1-positive cell lines and 4/408 (1.0%) NSCLC samples tested positive for ROS1 by IDE. Among the 4 IDE-positive NSCLC samples, 1 was confirmed by ROS1 FISH. For RET, all 7 known positives and 10/408 (2.5%) NSCLC samples tested positive by IDE. Three of six RET IDE positive NSCLC samples were confirmed by RET FISH. Overall, ALK, ROS1, and RET translocations were mutually exclusive in NSCLC patients. The lung IDE assay had a failure rate of 3.7%. CONCLUSION: These findings demonstrate the feasibility of using IDE to detect ALK, ROS1, and RET gene translocations. These assays may have potential as a screening tool to select patients for further confirmation by FISH for TKI-targeted therapy. The IDE concept can be applied to a wide range of somatic translocations. Citation Format: Shih-Min Cheng, Cindy Barlan, Feras Hantash, Heather R. Sanders, Patricia H. Chan, Vladimira Sulcova, Marc A. Sanidad, Kevin Qu, Joann C. Kelly, Fatih Z. Boyar, Anthony D. Sferruzza, Frederic M. Waldman. Detection of ALK, ROS1, and RET translocations in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients by intragenic differential expression analysis. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 105th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2014 Apr 5-9; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2014;74(19 Suppl):Abstract nr 4675. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2014-4675