S M Evrard1,2, J Meilleroux2, G Daniel2, C Basset1,2, L Lacoste-Collin1,2, S Vergez3,4,5, E Uro-Coste1,5, M Courtade-Saidi1,2. 1. Rangueil Medical School, Histology and Embryology, Toulouse III Paul Sabatier University, Toulouse Cedex, France. 2. Pathology and Cytology Department, CHU Toulouse, IUCT Oncopole, Toulouse Cedex 9, France. 3. Otolaryngology Department, Head and Neck Surgery, CHU Toulouse, Larrey Hospital, Toulouse Cedex 9, France. 4. Otolaryngology Department, Head and Neck Surgery, CHU Toulouse, IUCT Oncopole, Toulouse Cedex 9, France. 5. Rangueil Medical School, Toulouse III Paul Sabatier University, Toulouse Cedex, France.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Salivary gland cytology is challenging because it includes a diversity of lesions and a wide spectra of tumours. Recently, it has been reported that many types of salivary gland tumours have specific molecular diagnostic signatures that could be identified by fluorescent in-situ hybridisation (FISH). The aim of the present study was to demonstrate the feasibility and efficiency of FISH on routine cytological salivary gland smears. METHODS: FISH was conducted on 37 cytological salivary gland smears from 34 patients. According to the cytological diagnosis suspected, MECT1/MAML2 gene fusion and rearrangements of PLAG1, MYB, or ETV6 were analysed. The presence and percentages of cells that had gene rearrangements were evaluated. Results were compared with the histological surgical samples, available from 26 patients. RESULTS: The PLAG1 rearrangement was observed in 12/20 (60%) cases of pleomorphic adenoma. MECT1/MAML2 gene fusion was observed in 1:2 mucoepidermoid carcinomas but was not observed in five other tumours (two pleomorphic adenomas, one Warthin's tumour, one mammary analogue secretory carcinoma [MASC] and one cystic tumour). MYB rearrangement was observed in 4/4 adenoid cystic carcinomas. ETV6-gene splitting identified one MASC. CONCLUSION: Overall, FISH had a specificity of 100% and a sensitivity of 66.7%. When FISH and cytological analyses were combined, the overall sensitivity was increased to 93.3%. It can thus be concluded that when the FISH analysis is positive, the extent of surgery could be determined with confidence pre-operatively without needing a diagnosis from a frozen section.
OBJECTIVE: Salivary gland cytology is challenging because it includes a diversity of lesions and a wide spectra of tumours. Recently, it has been reported that many types of salivary gland tumours have specific molecular diagnostic signatures that could be identified by fluorescent in-situ hybridisation (FISH). The aim of the present study was to demonstrate the feasibility and efficiency of FISH on routine cytological salivary gland smears. METHODS: FISH was conducted on 37 cytological salivary gland smears from 34 patients. According to the cytological diagnosis suspected, MECT1/MAML2 gene fusion and rearrangements of PLAG1, MYB, or ETV6 were analysed. The presence and percentages of cells that had gene rearrangements were evaluated. Results were compared with the histological surgical samples, available from 26 patients. RESULTS: The PLAG1 rearrangement was observed in 12/20 (60%) cases of pleomorphic adenoma. MECT1/MAML2 gene fusion was observed in 1:2 mucoepidermoid carcinomas but was not observed in five other tumours (two pleomorphic adenomas, one Warthin's tumour, one mammary analogue secretory carcinoma [MASC] and one cystic tumour). MYB rearrangement was observed in 4/4 adenoid cystic carcinomas. ETV6-gene splitting identified one MASC. CONCLUSION: Overall, FISH had a specificity of 100% and a sensitivity of 66.7%. When FISH and cytological analyses were combined, the overall sensitivity was increased to 93.3%. It can thus be concluded that when the FISH analysis is positive, the extent of surgery could be determined with confidence pre-operatively without needing a diagnosis from a frozen section.