| Literature DB >> 28983465 |
Julum Nwanze1,2, Momin T Siddiqui1, Keith A Stevens1, Debra Saxe1, Cynthia Cohen1.
Abstract
MYC is the proto-oncogene classically associated with Burkitt lymphoma (BL) located at chromosomal locus 8q24. Rearrangements of MYC are seen in nearly 100% of BL but have been reported in 3-16% of diffuse large B-cell lymphomas (DLBCLs). Rearrangements of MYC are tested for by flourescence in situ hybridization (FISH). In this study, we compared immunohistochemistry (IHC) using a monoclonal antibody directed against the human Myc protein to the current method, FISH. 31 cases were identified that had been tested for MYC rearrangements by FISH over 27 months with heterogeneity in the diagnoses: 5 BL; 10 DLBCL; 3 B-cell lymphoma unclassifiable between DLBCL and BL; 5 B-cell lymphoma not otherwise specified; 1 EBV-related B-cell lymphoma; 1 composite CLL/SLL-large cell lymphoma; and 6 designated as high-grade or aggressive B-cell lymphoma. Analysis by FISH was performed as part of the clinical workup, where a MYC rearrangement is defined as a split fusion signal in at least 5.7% of cells. Myc-IHC was interpreted as a qualitative positive (overexpressed) or negative (not overexpressed) result. 12 cases (39%) were positive for MYC rearrangements by FISH. Overall, 13 cases (42%) showed Myc overexpression by IHC, 11 of which harbored a MYC rearrangement by FISH. There were two false positives and one false negative. Thus, Myc-IHC predicted a MYC rearrangement by FISH with 92% sensitivity and 89% specificity. We can thus conclude that Myc-IHC should be a potentially useful screening tool for identifying lymphomas that may harbor a MYC rearrangement.Entities:
Keywords: Burkitt lymphoma; MYC; MYC rearrangement; immunohistochemistry; in situ hybridization
Year: 2017 PMID: 28983465 PMCID: PMC5613089 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2017.00209
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 6.244
Summary of results by diagnosis.
| Diagnosis | Number (%) | Myc overexpression by immunohistochemistry (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Burkitt lymphoma (BL) or “consistent with BL” | 5 (100) | 5 (100) | 5 (100) |
| Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) | 10 (100) | 0 (0) | 1 (10) |
| B-cell lymphoma unclassifiable with features intermediate between DLBCL and BL | 3 (100) | 3 (100) | 2 (66.67) |
| EBV-related B-cell lymphoma | 1 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| Composite CLL/SLL-large cell lymphoma | 1 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| B-cell lymphoma, not otherwise specified | 5 (100) | 2 (40) | 1 (20) |
| “High-grade”/“aggressive” B-cell lymphoma | 6 (100) | 3 (50) | 3 (50) |
Figure 1Micrographs of immunohistochemistry and FISH slides; (A) “True positive”: Myc nuclear staining in nearly 100% of tumor cells; (B) “True positive”: Burkitt lymphoma (BL) (H/E) with MYC rearrangement by FISH (inset); (C) “False positive”: Myc nuclear staining in nearly 100% of tumor cells; (D) “False positive” B-cell lymphoma unclassifiable with features intermediate between diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and BL (H/E) without MYC rearrange by FISH (inset); (E) “True negative”: Myc nuclear staining faint in a small percentage of cells; (F) “True negative”: DLBCL (H/E) without MYC rearrangement by FISH (inset) (image magnification: 4×).
Figure 2Percentage of positive cases using Myc-IHC compared to positive cases using MYC rearrangement by FISH.
Sensitivity and specificity of Myc-IHC compared to MYC rearrangement by FISH.
| Total | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Positive | Negative | ||||
| Myc-IHC | Positive | 11 | 2 | 13 | PPV—84.6% |
| Negative | 1 | 17 | 18 | NPV—94.4% | |
| Sensitivity—91.6% | Specificity—89.4% | ||||