Comparative assessment of conventional chromosomal analysis and fluorescence in situ hybridization in the evaluation of suspected myelodysplastic syndromes: A single institution experience

Abstract

Background: Myelodysplastic syndromes (MDSs) are a heterogeneous group of clonal hematopoietic neoplasms, roughly half of which harbor cytogenetic abnormalities with diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic significance. Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) for the most commonly seen abnormalities (5/5q, –7/7q, +8, and –20/20q–) is routinely performed alongside conventional cytogenetics (CC) in the evaluation of suspected MDS despite conflicting reports of its relative contribution compared to CC alone.Objectives: To assess the additional diagnostic and prognostic value of performing concurrent FISH versus CC alone in cases of suspected MDS.Materials and Methods: A total of 127 bone marrow samples submitted to our cytogenetic laboratory with a presumptive diagnosis of MDS were evaluated by concurrent CC and an MDS FISH panel.Results: CC was used as the gold standard method with 100% sensitivity in detecting suspected MDS-associated cytogenetic abnormalities. FISH alone had a sensitivity of 76%, whereas CC alone achieved a sensitivity of 97%. The addition of FISH did not change the diagnosis nor change the Revised International Prognostic Scoring System score in any patient. Moreover, in 12 cases identified as positive by both CC and FISH, CC identified multiple chromosomal aberrations of clinical significance not interrogated by the FISH probe panel.Conclusion: CC alone is sufficiently sensitive in detecting suspected MDS-associated cytogenetic abnormalities that influence clinical decision-making. Routine FISH testing does not provide a significant increase in test sensitivity when an adequate karyotype is obtained. Therefore, FISH testing is best reserved for suspected MDS cases lacking sufficient metaphases.

Keywords

Chromosomal analysis - fluorescence in situ hybridization - karyotype - myelodysplastic syndrome

• References

• 1 Haase D. Cytogenetic features in myelodysplastic syndromes. Ann Hematol 2008; 87: 515-26
• 2 Arber DA, Orazi A, Hasserjian R, Thiele J, Borowitz MJ, Le Beau MM. et al. The 2016 revision to the World Health Organization classification of myeloid neoplasms and acute leukemia. Blood 2016; 127: 2391-405
• 3 Greenberg PL, Tuechler H, Schanz J, Sanz G, Garcia-Manero G, Solé F. et al. Revised international prognostic scoring system for myelodysplastic syndromes. Blood 2012; 120: 2454-65
• 4 Bejar R, Steensma DP. Recent developments in myelodysplastic syndromes. Blood 2014; 124: 2793-803
• 5 Nevill TJ, Fung HC, Shepherd JD, Horsman DE, Nantel SH, Klingemann HG. et al. Cytogenetic abnormalities in primary myelodysplastic syndrome are highly predictive of outcome after allogeneic bone marrow transplantation. Blood 1998; 92: 1910-7
• 6 de Witte T, Oosterveld M, Muus P. Autologous and allogeneic stem cell transplantation for myelodysplastic syndrome. Blood Rev 2007; 21: 49-59
• 7 Arif M, Tanaka K, Damodaran C, Asou H, Kyo T, Dohy H. et al. Hidden monosomy 7 in acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndrome detected by interphase fluorescence in situ hybridization. Leuk Res 1996; 20: 709-16
• 8 Brizard F, Brizard A, Guilhot F, Tanzer J, Berger R. Detection of monosomy 7 and trisomies 8 and 11 in myelodysplastic disorders by interphase fluorescent in situ hybridization Comparison with acute non-lymphocytic leukemias. Leukemia 1994; 8: 1005-11
• 9 Bernasconi P, Cavigliano PM, Boni M, Calatroni S, Klersy C, Giardini I. et al. Is FISH a relevant prognostic tool in myelodysplastic syndromes with a normal chromosome pattern on conventional cytogenetics? A study on 57 patients. Leukemia 2003; 17: 2107-12
• 10 Rigolin GM, Bigoni R, Milani R, Cavazzini F, Roberti MG, Bardi A. et al. Clinical importance of interphase cytogenetics detecting occult chromosome lesions in myelodysplastic syndromes with normal karyotype. Leukemia 2001; 15: 1841-7
• 11 Romeo M, Chauffaille Mde L, Silva MR, Bahia DM, Kerbauy J. Comparison of cytogenetics with FISH in 40 myelodysplastic syndrome patients. Leuk Res 2002; 26: 993-6
• 12 Beyer V, Castagné C, Mühlematter D, Parlier V, Gmür J, Hess U. et al. Systematic screening at diagnosis of -5/del(5)(q31), -7, or chromosome 8 aneuploidy by interphase fluorescence in situ hybridization in 110 acute myelocytic leukemia and high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome patients: Concordances and discrepancies with conventional cytogenetics. Cancer Genet Cytogenet 2004; 152: 29-41
• 13 Cherry AM, Brockman SR, Paternoster SF, Hicks GA, Neuberg D, Higgins RR. et al. Comparison of interphase FISH and metaphase cytogenetics to study myelodysplastic syndrome: An Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) study. Leuk Res 2003; 27: 1085-90
• 14 Ketterling RP, Wyatt WA, VanWier SA, Law M, Hodnefield JM, Hanson CA. et al. Primary myelodysplastic syndrome with normal cytogenetics: Utility of ‘FISH panel testing’ and M-FISH. Leuk Res 2002; 26: 235-40
• 15 Pitchford CW, Hettinga AC, Reichard KK. Fluorescence in situ hybridization testing for -5/5q, -7/7q, +8, and del(20q) in primary myelodysplastic syndrome correlates with conventional cytogenetics in the setting of an adequate study. Am J Clin Pathol 2010; 133: 260-4
• 16 Costa D, Valera S, Carrió A, Arias A, Muñoz C, Rozman M. et al. Do we need to do fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis in myelodysplastic syndromes as often as we do?. Leuk Res 2010; 34: 1437-41
• 17 He R, Wiktor AE, Durnick DK, Kurtin PJ, Van Dyke DL, Tefferi A. et al. Bone marrow conventional karyotyping and fluorescence in situ hybridization: Defining an effective utilization strategy for evaluation of myelodysplastic syndromes. Am J Clin Pathol 2016; 146: 86-94