Literature DB >> 25407564

An evaluation and recommendation of the optimal methodologies to detect RET gene rearrangements in papillary thyroid carcinoma.

Tianwei Zhang1, Yachao Lu, Qingqing Ye, Meizhuo Zhang, Li Zheng, Xiaolu Yin, Paul Gavine, Zhongsheng Sun, Qunsheng Ji, Guanshan Zhu, Xinying Su.   

Abstract

To recommend a reliable and clinically realistic RET/PTC rearrangement detection assay for papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC), we compared multiplex quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR), fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), and immunohistochemistry (IHC). RET/PTC rearrangement was detected using either RET break-apart FISH followed by multicolor FISH to confirm CCDC6/RET or NCOA4/RET fusions, or by multiplex qPCR to detect 14 RET/PTC subtypes with simultaneous RET mRNA expression. RET protein expression was detected by IHC. The specificity and sensitivity of multiplex qPCR and IHC were calculated using break-apart FISH as a reference. Among 73 PTC patients with sufficient tissue available for FISH and multiplex qPCR, 10 cases were defined as RET/PTC positive by both assays, including eight CCDC6/RET and two NCOA4/RET fusions with relatively high RET mRNA. In addition, multiplex qPCR identified another two CCDC6/RET fusion positive cases, but with low RET mRNA expression. IHC staining identified 11 RET positive cases among 39 patients with available samples. In comparison to FISH, multiplex qPCR displayed 100% sensitivity and 97% specificity to detect RET/PTC fusions, while IHC was neither sensitive nor specific. Our data reveal that both multiplex qPCR and FISH assays are equally applicable for detection of RET/PTC rearrangements. Break-apart FISH methodology is highly recommended for the wider screening of RET rearrangements (regardless of partner genes), while multiplex qPCR is preferred to identify all known fusion types using one assay, provided mRNA expression is also measured. IHC analysis could potentially provide an additional method of fusion detection dependent on further optimization of assay conditions and scoring cutoffs.
© 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25407564     DOI: 10.1002/gcc.22229

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Genes Chromosomes Cancer        ISSN: 1045-2257            Impact factor:   5.006


  3 in total

1.  A Performance Comparison of Commonly Used Assays to Detect RET Fusions.

Authors:  Soo-Ryum Yang; Umut Aypar; Ezra Y Rosen; Douglas A Mata; Ryma Benayed; Kerry Mullaney; Gowtham Jayakumaran; Yanming Zhang; Denise Frosina; Alexander Drilon; Marc Ladanyi; Achim A Jungbluth; Natasha Rekhtman; Jaclyn F Hechtman
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2020-12-03       Impact factor: 12.531

2.  In vitro and in vivo anti-tumor activity of alectinib in tumor cells with NCOA4-RET.

Authors:  Sachiko Arai; Kenji Kita; Azusa Tanimoto; Shinji Takeuchi; Koji Fukuda; Hiroshi Sato; Seiji Yano
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2017-05-16

3.  Response to RET-Specific Therapy in RET Fusion-Positive Anaplastic Thyroid Carcinoma.

Authors:  Dora Dias-Santagata; Jochen K Lennerz; Peter M Sadow; Ryan P Frazier; Sandya Govinda Raju; Dahlia Henry; Trisha Chung; Jennifer Kherani; S Michael Rothenberg; Lori J Wirth
Journal:  Thyroid       Date:  2020-05-19       Impact factor: 6.568

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.