Literature DB >> 21151100

Fluorescence in situ hybridization, a diagnostic aid in ambiguous melanocytic tumors: European study of 113 cases.

Beatrice Vergier1, Martina Prochazkova-Carlotti, Arnaud de la Fouchardière, Lorenzo Cerroni, Daniela Massi, Vincenzo De Giorgi, Christiane Bailly, Ulrich Wesselmann, Apollon Karlseladze, Marie-Francoise Avril, Thomas Jouary, Jean-Philippe Merlio.   

Abstract

Some melanocytic tumors are ambiguous, so the reproducible histopathological diagnosis of benign or malignant lesion is difficult. This study evaluated the contribution of fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) first in 43 non-equivocal melanomas and nevi, and then in 113 ambiguous melanocytic tumors selected by expert pathologists from six different European institutions. We included two groups of ambiguous tumors: patients without recurrence (5-year minimal follow-up) and with metastases. An independent triple-blind histopathological review was performed to classify tumors as 'favor benign' (A-) or 'favor malignant' (A+). A four-color probe set targeting 6p25, 6q23, 11q13 and CEP6 was used for FISH. In the 43 non-equivocal melanomas and nevi, sensitivity was 85% and specificity 90%. Ninety out of 95 ambiguous melanocytic tumors included were FISH interpretable (67 FISH negative and 23 FISH positive). Of the 90 patients, 69 presented no recurrence and 21/90 exhibited metastases. These ambiguous tumors were mostly spitzoid tumors (45/90). Histopathological reviewers classified these tumors as favor malignant (49/90) and favor benign (32/90), whereas nine cases had a discordant diagnosis. By comparison with outcome, the sensitivity and specificity of histopathological review were 95 and 52%, and the sensitivity and specificity of FISH were 43 and 80%. Compared with histopathological review, the sensitivity and specificity of FISH were 34.5 and 91%. Interestingly, by combining the histopathological diagnosis with FISH results, the diagnosis was optimized, especially by increasing specificity (76% instead of 52% for expert diagnosis alone) and by improving sensitivity compared with FISH alone (90 vs 43% for FISH result alone). The value of this FISH test is to add a reproducible demonstration of malignancy to the histopathological diagnosis, especially in doubtful/ambiguous melanocytic tumors. A positive FISH test reinforces the diagnosis of melanoma, allowing such tumors (particularly thick tumors) to be managed as melanomas.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21151100     DOI: 10.1038/modpathol.2010.228

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mod Pathol        ISSN: 0893-3952            Impact factor:   7.842


  17 in total

1.  Cell cycle analysis can differentiate thin melanomas from dysplastic nevi and reveals accelerated replication in thick melanomas.

Authors:  Gergo Kiszner; Barnabas Wichmann; Istvan B Nemeth; Erika Varga; Nora Meggyeshazi; Ivett Teleki; Peter Balla; Mate E Maros; Karoly Penksza; Tibor Krenacs
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2014-03-30       Impact factor: 4.064

Review 2.  A diagnostic algorithm for atypical spitzoid tumors: guidelines for immunohistochemical and molecular assessment.

Authors:  Jeong Hee Cho-Vega
Journal:  Mod Pathol       Date:  2016-04-22       Impact factor: 7.842

3.  Oral atypical cellular blue nevus: an infiltrative melanocytic proliferation.

Authors:  Brian S Shumway; Yeshwant B Rawal; Carl M Allen; John R Kalmar; Cynthia M Magro
Journal:  Head Neck Pathol       Date:  2012-08-01

4.  Collagen XVII is expressed in malignant but not in benign melanocytic tumors and it can mediate antibody induced melanoma apoptosis.

Authors:  T Krenacs; G Kiszner; E Stelkovics; P Balla; I Teleki; I Nemeth; E Varga; I Korom; T Barbai; V Plotar; J Timar; E Raso
Journal:  Histochem Cell Biol       Date:  2012-06-12       Impact factor: 4.304

5.  Comparison between melanoma gene expression score and fluorescence in situ hybridization for the classification of melanocytic lesions.

Authors:  Eugen C Minca; Rami N Al-Rohil; Min Wang; Paul W Harms; Jennifer S Ko; Angela M Collie; Ivanka Kovalyshyn; Victor G Prieto; Michael T Tetzlaff; Steven D Billings; Aleodor A Andea
Journal:  Mod Pathol       Date:  2016-05-13       Impact factor: 7.842

6.  The self-reported use of immunostains and cytogenetic testing in the diagnosis of melanoma by practicing U.S. pathologists of 10 selected states.

Authors:  Ge Zhao; Kachiu C Lee; Gina Kwon; Paul D Frederick; Tracy L Onega; Michael W Piepkorn; Stevan Knezevich; Raymond L Barnhill; David E Elder; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  J Cutan Pathol       Date:  2016-04-07       Impact factor: 1.587

7.  Combinational chromosomal aneuploidies and HPV status for prediction of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma prognosis in biopsies and cytological preparations.

Authors:  Silke Wemmert; Maximilian Linxweiler; Cornelia Lerner; Florian Bochen; Philipp Kulas; Johannes Linxweiler; Sigrun Smola; Steffi Urbschat; Stefan Wagenpfeil; Bernhard Schick
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  2018-03-20       Impact factor: 4.553

Review 8.  Review of diagnostic, prognostic, and predictive biomarkers in melanoma.

Authors:  Jacob S Ankeny; Brian Labadie; Jason Luke; Eddy Hsueh; Jane Messina; Jonathan S Zager
Journal:  Clin Exp Metastasis       Date:  2018-05-02       Impact factor: 5.150

Review 9.  Through the looking glass and what you find there: making sense of comparative genomic hybridization and fluorescence in situ hybridization for melanoma diagnosis.

Authors:  Jayson Miedema; Aleodor A Andea
Journal:  Mod Pathol       Date:  2020-02-17       Impact factor: 7.842

Review 10.  Diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers in melanoma.

Authors:  David Weinstein; Jennifer Leininger; Carl Hamby; Bijan Safai
Journal:  J Clin Aesthet Dermatol       Date:  2014-06
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.