Literature DB >> 22157614

Multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification equals fluorescence in-situ hybridization for the identification of patients at risk for metastatic disease in uveal melanoma.

Jolanda Vaarwater1, Thomas van den Bosch, Hanneke W Mensink, Chantal van Kempen, Rob M Verdijk, Nicole C Naus, Dion Paridaens, Hennie T Brüggenwirth, Emine Kiliç, Annelies de Klein.   

Abstract

In uveal melanoma, loss of chromosome 3 and gain of chromosome 8q are associated with a high risk of metastasis. In this study, we validated the use of multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA) in detecting patients at risk for metastatic disease in comparison with the predictive power of fluorescence in-situ hybridization (FISH). For 64 uveal melanoma samples, the MLPA results of chromosome 3 and 8 were compared with the results obtained by FISH. For seven samples, a single nucleotide polymorphism array was performed to clarify discrepancies. Clinical information together with the histopathology and chromosomal aberrations of chromosomes 1, 3, 6, and 8 were evaluated for correlation with the patients' prognosis. Loss of chromosome 3, loss or gain of 8p, and gain of 8q, found with MLPA, correlated with a significantly lower disease-free survival (P<0.001). On the basis of the clinical outcome, 12 patients would have been classified incorrectly using MLPA results of chromosomes 3 and 8. FISH results led to the same incorrect classification. Four patients with abnormalities of chromosomes 3 and 8 in the tumor, detected with MLPA, are still alive without metastasis. Eight patients without concurrent aberrations of chromosomes 3 and 8 in the tumors died due to metastasis. The sensitivity of MLPA to detect patients at risk for metastatic disease is higher than with the results obtained with FISH (0.795 vs. 0.692). The specificity is equal for both techniques (0.840). MLPA is able to detect patients at risk for metastasis using the results for chromosomes 3 and 8. There is no significant difference in the predictive power of MLPA compared with FISH.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22157614     DOI: 10.1097/CMR.0b013e32834e6a67

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Melanoma Res        ISSN: 0960-8931            Impact factor:   3.599


  11 in total

1.  Prognostication for Uveal Melanoma: Are Two Tests Better than One?

Authors:  Claudine Bellerive; Hans E Grossniklaus; Arun D Singh
Journal:  Ocul Oncol Pathol       Date:  2017-04-14

2.  Correlation of Immunocytochemistry of BRCA1-associated Protein-1 (BAP1) With Other Prognostic Markers in Uveal Melanoma.

Authors:  Ben J Glasgow; Tara A McCannel
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol       Date:  2018-03-09       Impact factor: 5.258

3.  Combined mutation and copy-number variation detection by targeted next-generation sequencing in uveal melanoma.

Authors:  Kyra N Smit; Natasha M van Poppelen; Jolanda Vaarwater; Robert Verdijk; Ronald van Marion; Helen Kalirai; Sarah E Coupland; Sophie Thornton; Neil Farquhar; Hendrikus-Jan Dubbink; Dion Paridaens; Annelies de Klein; Emine Kiliç
Journal:  Mod Pathol       Date:  2018-01-12       Impact factor: 7.842

4.  Host pigment epithelium-derived factor (PEDF) prevents progression of liver metastasis in a mouse model of uveal melanoma.

Authors:  John M Lattier; Hua Yang; Susan Crawford; Hans E Grossniklaus
Journal:  Clin Exp Metastasis       Date:  2013-06-22       Impact factor: 5.150

Review 5.  Metastatic uveal melanoma: biology and emerging treatments.

Authors:  Scott E Woodman
Journal:  Cancer J       Date:  2012 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 3.360

6.  Chromosome 3 status in uveal melanoma: a comparison of fluorescence in situ hybridization and single-nucleotide polymorphism array.

Authors:  Arun D Singh; Mary E Aronow; Yang Sun; Gurkan Bebek; Yogen Saunthararajah; Lynn R Schoenfield; Charles V Biscotti; Raymond R Tubbs; Pierre L Triozzi; Charis Eng
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2012-06-05       Impact factor: 4.799

Review 7.  Choroidal biopsies; a review and optimised approach.

Authors:  R N Hussain; B Damato; H Heimann
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2022-08-08       Impact factor: 4.456

Review 8.  Prognostication in eye cancer: the latest tumor, node, metastasis classification and beyond.

Authors:  T Kivelä; E Kujala
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2012-12-21       Impact factor: 3.775

Review 9.  Molecular pathology of uveal melanoma.

Authors:  S E Coupland; S L Lake; M Zeschnigk; B E Damato
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2012-12-07       Impact factor: 3.775

Review 10.  Tumor Characteristics, Genetics, Management, and the Risk of Metastasis in Uveal Melanoma.

Authors:  Erin E Nichols; Ann Richmond; Anthony B Daniels
Journal:  Semin Ophthalmol       Date:  2016-04-29       Impact factor: 1.975

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.