BACKGROUND: Atypical lipomatous tumor/well-differentiated liposarcoma (ALT-WDLPS) and dedifferentiated liposarcoma (DDLPS) are characterized cytogenetically by a 12q13-15 amplification involving the mouse double minute 2 (MDM2) oncogene. Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) is used frequently to detect this amplification and aid with the diagnosis of these entities, which is difficult by morphology alone. Recently, bright-field in situ hybridization techniques such as chromogenic in situ hybridization (CISH) have been introduced for the determination of MDM2 amplification status. METHODS: The present study compared the results of FISH and CISH for detecting MDM2 amplification in 41 cases of adipocytic tumors. Amplification was defined in both techniques as a MDM2/CEN12 ratio of 2 or greater. RESULTS: Eleven cases showed amplification with both FISH and CISH, and 26 cases showed no amplification with both methods. Two cases had discordant results between CISH and FISH, and two cases were not interpretable by CISH. CONCLUSION: CISH is advantageous for allowing pathologists to evaluate the histologic and molecular alterations occurring simultaneously in a specimen. Moreover, CISH is found to be more cost- and time-efficient when used with automation, and the signals do not quench over time. CISH technique is a reliable alternative to FISH in the evaluation of adipocytic tumors for MDM2 amplification.
BACKGROUND: Atypical lipomatous tumor/well-differentiated liposarcoma (ALT-WDLPS) and dedifferentiated liposarcoma (DDLPS) are characterized cytogenetically by a 12q13-15 amplification involving the mouse double minute 2 (MDM2) oncogene. Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) is used frequently to detect this amplification and aid with the diagnosis of these entities, which is difficult by morphology alone. Recently, bright-field in situ hybridization techniques such as chromogenic in situ hybridization (CISH) have been introduced for the determination of MDM2 amplification status. METHODS: The present study compared the results of FISH and CISH for detecting MDM2 amplification in 41 cases of adipocytic tumors. Amplification was defined in both techniques as a MDM2/CEN12 ratio of 2 or greater. RESULTS: Eleven cases showed amplification with both FISH and CISH, and 26 cases showed no amplification with both methods. Two cases had discordant results between CISH and FISH, and two cases were not interpretable by CISH. CONCLUSION: CISH is advantageous for allowing pathologists to evaluate the histologic and molecular alterations occurring simultaneously in a specimen. Moreover, CISH is found to be more cost- and time-efficient when used with automation, and the signals do not quench over time. CISH technique is a reliable alternative to FISH in the evaluation of adipocytic tumors for MDM2 amplification.
Authors: Wenjun Zhang; Abigail McElhinny; Alma Nielsen; Maria Wang; Melanie Miller; Shalini Singh; Ruediger Rueger; Brian P Rubin; Zhen Wang; Raymond R Tubbs; Raymond B Nagle; Pat Roche; Ping Wu; Lidija Pestic-Dragovich Journal: Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol Date: 2011-01
Authors: Ronald S A de Vreeze; Daphne de Jong; Petra M Nederlof; Aafke Ariaens; Ivon H G Tielen; Luc Frenken; Rick L Haas; Frits van Coevorden Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Hiroaki Nitta; Beatrice Hauss-Wegrzyniak; Megan Lehrkamp; Adrian E Murillo; Fabien Gaire; Michael Farrell; Eric Walk; Frederique Penault-Llorca; Masafumi Kurosumi; Manfred Dietel; Lin Wang; Margaret Loftus; James Pettay; Raymond R Tubbs; Thomas M Grogan Journal: Diagn Pathol Date: 2008-10-22 Impact factor: 2.644
Authors: Maria Del Carmen Rodriguez Pena; Jennifer Gordetsky; Patricia T Greipp; Shi Wei; Guido Martignoni; George J Netto; Shuko Harada; Carlos N Prieto Granada Journal: Virchows Arch Date: 2020-05-15 Impact factor: 4.064