| Literature DB >> 28534101 |
M Nicoś1, P Krawczyk2, K Wojas-Krawczyk2, A Bożyk2, B Jarosz3, M Sawicki4, T Trojanowski3, J Milanowski2.
Abstract
PURPOSE: RT-PCR technique has showed a promising value as pre-screening method for detection of mRNA containing abnormal ALK sequences, but its sensitivity and specificity is still discussable. Previously, we determined the incidence of ALK rearrangement in CNS metastases of NSCLC using IHC and FISH methods. MATERIALS: We evaluated ALK gene rearrangement using two-step RT-PCR method with EML4-ALK Fusion Gene Detection Kit (Entrogen, USA). The studied group included 145 patients (45 females, 100 males) with CNS metastases of NSCLC and was heterogeneous in terms of histology and smoking status.Entities:
Keywords: ALK rearrangement; CNS metastases; FISH; IHC; NSCLC; RT-PCR
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28534101 PMCID: PMC5700214 DOI: 10.1007/s12094-017-1676-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clin Transl Oncol ISSN: 1699-048X Impact factor: 3.405
Characteristics of the studied group
| Gender | |
| Male, | 100 (69) |
| Female, | 45 (31) |
| Age | |
| Median age ± SD (years) | 60 ± 8.8 |
| ≥60 years, | 72 (49.7) |
| <60 years, | 73 (50.3) |
| Histopathology | |
| Adenocarcinoma, | 82 (56.6) |
| Squamous cell carcinoma, | 29 (20) |
| Large-cell carcinoma, | 22 (15.1) |
| NSCLC-NOS, | 12 (8.3) |
| Smoking status | |
| Current smokers, | 73 (50.4) |
| Former smokers, | 21 (14.5) |
| Non-smokers, | 36 (24.8) |
| Lack of data, | 15 (10.3) |
| Performance status | |
| 0, | 22 (15.2) |
| 1, | 76 (52.4) |
| 2, | 31 (21.4) |
| 3, | 16 (11) |
Comparison of RT-PCR positive results to IHC and FISH results obtained in the studied group
| No. | Gender | Age | Histopathology | RT-PCR | IHC | FISH |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | F | 57 | SCC | + | − | Non-diagnostic |
| 2 | F | 53 | SCC | + | − | Non-diagnostic |
| 3 | F | 45 | SCC | + | − | − |
| 4 | F | 53 | AD | + | − | − |
| 5 | M | 52 | AD | + | − | Non-diagnostic |
| 6 | F | 59 | SCC | + | − | − |
| 7 | M | 64 | SCC | + | + | − |
| 8 | M | 59 | AD | + | − | Non-diagnostic |
| 9 | F | 74 | AD | + | + | − |
| 10 | M | 63 | AD | + | − | − |
| 11 | M | 60 | AD | + | + | − |
| 12 | M | 55 | AD | + | − | Non-diagnostic |
| 13 | F | 54 | AD | + | + | + |
| 14 | M | 50 | AD | + | − | Non-diagnostic |
| 15 | F | 53 | AD | + | + | + |
| 16 | F | 57 | AD | + | − | − |
| 17 | F | 73 | AD | + | − | Non-diagnostic |
| 18 | M | 53 | SCC | + | − | − |
| 19 | M | 72 | AD | + | − | Non-diagnostic |
| 20 | F | 61 | AD | + | − | − |
| 21 | M | 47 | AD | + | − | − |
| 22 | F | 59 | AD | + | + | Non-diagnostic |
| 23 | M | 59 | SCC | + | − | − |
| 24 | F | 58 | AD | + | + | + |
| 25 | M | 64 | AD | + | + | + |
| 26 | M | 62 | AD | + | − | − |
| 27 | M | 58 | AD-SCC | + | + | + |
| 28 | M | 61 | AD | + | − | − |
| 29 | M | 41 | AD | + | + | + |
| 30 | F | 62 | AD | + | + | Non-diagnostic |
In spite of non-diagnostic FISH result in the sample 30 was qualified as a ALK positive how we described previously [15]
M male, F female, AD adenocarcinoma, SCC squamous cell carcinoma, AD-SCC adenosquamous cell carcinoma
Fig. 1Example of lack of ALK abnormal protein expression in IHC assay and negative result of FISH assay (<15% nuclei with ALK gene rearrangement) in patients with expression of mRNA with abnormal ALK sequence showed in RT-PCR assay. a Shows H + E staining, b Shows negative IHC staining with Rabbit Monoclonal Negative Control, c shows lack of ALK abnormal protein expression with Positive Rabbit Monoclonal Antibody D5F3, d shows FISH result presenting single ALK rearranged nucleus. The white arrow marked single red signals