Literature DB >> 30576704

Molecular testing of borderline cutaneous melanocytic lesions: SNP array is more sensitive and specific than FISH.

Michael D Carter1, Alison B Durham2, Jayson R Miedema3, Paul W Harms4, May P Chan5, Rajiv M Patel6, Lori Lowe7, Douglas R Fullen8, Alexandra C Hristov9, Min Wang10, Aleodor A Andea11.   

Abstract

Melanocytic lesions with borderline features are diagnostically challenging. Single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) arrays, which detect genomic copy number alterations (CNAs), can be helpful in distinguishing between nevi and melanoma. Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) has been used as a more rapid, less expensive alternative to SNP array, using a panel of probes that are often gained or lost in melanoma. We used SNP array data from 63 borderline cutaneous melanocytic lesions and 44 definitive melanomas to predict the performance of FISH testing. Lesions were considered positive by "virtual FISH" if 1 or more of the 5 FISH-probed loci demonstrated appropriate CNAs by SNP array. Cases were classified as positive by SNP array if ≥3 CNAs were present, based on internal validation studies, or if FISH criteria were met. Conventional FISH was performed in 33 cases (17 borderline lesions, 16 melanomas). Of the 63 borderline cases, 44 (70%) were positive by SNP array and 30 (48%) were positive by virtual FISH. A higher proportion of melanomas were positive by SNP array (41/44, 93% sensitivity) and virtual FISH (36/44, 82% sensitivity). Virtual FISH had 61% sensitivity in the borderline group using SNP array as the gold standard, whereas specificity was 84%. There was good correlation between conventional and virtual FISH, with agreement in 30 of 33 (91%) cases. Although FISH is highly effective in distinguishing between nevi and melanoma in cases where the histological diagnosis is straightforward, it is not nearly as sensitive or specific as SNP array when applied to borderline lesions.
Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Comparative genomic hybridization; Copy number aberrations; FISH; Melanoma; SNP array

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30576704     DOI: 10.1016/j.humpath.2018.12.002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hum Pathol        ISSN: 0046-8177            Impact factor:   3.466


  3 in total

Review 1.  Through the looking glass and what you find there: making sense of comparative genomic hybridization and fluorescence in situ hybridization for melanoma diagnosis.

Authors:  Jayson Miedema; Aleodor A Andea
Journal:  Mod Pathol       Date:  2020-02-17       Impact factor: 7.842

2.  Genome-wide copy number variations as molecular diagnostic tool for cutaneous intermediate melanocytic lesions: a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis.

Authors:  Chiel F Ebbelaar; Anne M L Jansen; Lourens T Bloem; Willeke A M Blokx
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2021-04-13       Impact factor: 4.064

Review 3.  Pigmented Epithelioid Melanocytomas and Their Mimics; Focus on Their Novel Molecular Findings.

Authors:  Erol C Bayraktar; George Jour
Journal:  Biology (Basel)       Date:  2021-12-08
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.