Assessing HER-2 status in fresh frozen and archival cytological samples obtained by fine needle aspiration cytology

Multiplex fluorescence in situ hybridization testing for anaplastic lymphoma kinase and c-ros oncogene 1 gene rearrangements on cytology smears in lung adenocarcinomas: comparative study with formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded sections

INTRODUCTION

Multiplex anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)/c-ros oncogene 1 (ROS1) fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) probes conserve tissue by analyzing both ALK and ROS1 gene rearrangements (ALK-R/ROS1-R) in a single test. The positivity cutoffs have been validated on formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue sections and not tested on non-cell block (CB) cytology preparations. We sought to validate non-CB cytology preparations for the detection of ALK-R/ROS1-R using multiplex ALK/ROS1 FISH probes by comparing the results with matched FFPE results.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

During the 3.5-year study period, FISH using the FlexISH ALK/ROS1 DistinguISH Probe (ZytoVision) was performed in non-CB cytology preparations of patients for whom FISH on FFPE sections was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 20 patients had one or more non-CB cytology preparations (n = 27) suitable for FISH analysis. These comprised direct smears (n = 17), smears from centrifuged effusion pellets (n = 8), cytospin smears (n = 1), and biopsy imprint smears (n = 1). These had been fixed in 95% ethanol (n = 18) or air dried (n = 9), and stained with Papanicolaou (n = 14), May-Grünwald-Giemsa (n = 9), immunocytochemistry (n = 3), or hematoxylin and eosin (n = 1). The median archival time was 1 year. Successful FISH results were achieved in 14 samples (6 with ALK-R, 2 with ROS1-R, 6 negative) and were concordant with the FFPE FISH results for 13 of 14 cases. The single case with discordant results between cytology and FFPE FISH showed ALK-R on cytology concordant with positive ALK D5F3 companion diagnostics assay results and was considered a false-negative FFPE FISH result. FISH failure occurred mainly in the older archived slides because of overdigestion (n = 5), hybridization failure (n = 5), or excessive background fluorescence (n = 3).

CONCLUSIONS

Non-CB cytology smears are highly suitable for multiplex FISH analysis with 100% concordance with FFPE FISH and/or ALK D5F3 companion diagnostics assay results.

Use of fluorescent in-situ hybridisation in salivary gland cytology: A powerful diagnostic tool

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.

Assessment of Her-2/neu status using immunocytochemistry and fluorescence in situ hybridization on fine-needle aspiration cytology smears: experience from a tertiary care centre in India

Breast carcinoma shows amplification/overexpression of Her-2/neu in ∼20-30% of cases. The determination of Her-2/neu expression accurately is vital in clinical practice as it has significant predictive value and eligibility for anti Her-2/neu therapy. Amplification and overexpression of Her-2/neu gene is traditionally identified by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and immunohistochemistry (IHC) on tissue sections; only a few studies have evaluated feasibility of these techniques on cytological smears. One hundred cases of breast cancer with fine-needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) samples and corresponding surgically resected specimen were selected. Immunocytochemistry (ICC) and FISH for Her-2/neu was done on FNA smears, whereas IHC was performed on corresponding tissue sections. Diagnostic accuracy of ICC was 99% when compared with IHC. Comparison of FISH results with IHC showed 100% concordance. Unlike many centers in West, FNAC is still routinely performed in developing countries like India where vast majority of breast cancer cases present as palpable lumps. The high rates of accuracy of ICC and FISH for Her-2/neu detection can make FNAC a relevant first line of investigation as a cost effective model with a rapid turn-around time, providing complete information necessary for initial management of breast cancer patients.

Fine needle aspiration for evaluation of breast masses

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Fine needle aspiration has been used for many years as a diagnostic tool for breast lesions, with high sensitivity and specificity. There is controversy as to whether this technique should be replaced by other diagnostic procedures such as core biopsy. This review aims to re-evaluate the usefulness of breast fine needle aspiration.

RECENT FINDINGS

During the past 10 years many institutions have replaced fine needle aspiration by core biopsy and related techniques such as vacuum-assisted core biopsy and advanced breast biopsy instrument action. Other institutions continue to use fine needle aspiration as a first line of investigation for breast lesions. This technique is especially useful in radiologically benign lesions and when combined with image guidance. The use of the 'triple test' (combined cytologic, clinical and radiologic findings) decreases false-negative and false-positive results.

SUMMARY

Fine needle aspiration continues to be an acceptable and reliable procedure for the preoperative diagnosis of breast lesions, particularly in developing countries, and when used as part of the 'triple test'. Accurate diagnosis requires experience in both aspiration technique and specimen interpretation. Clinicians should be mindful of the limitations of the technique. The choice between fine needle aspiration and core biopsy should be individualized for the patient.

Automated fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) analysis of t(9;22)(q34;q11) in interphase nuclei

BACKGROUND

For chronic myeloid leukemia, the FISH detection of t(9;22)(q34;q11) in interphase nuclei of peripheral leukocytes is an alternative method to bone marrow karyotyping for monitoring treatment. With automation, several drawbacks of manual analysis may be circumvented. In this article, the capabilities of a commercially available automated image acquisition and analysis system were determined by detecting t(9;22)(q34;q11) in interphase nuclei of peripheral leukocytes.

METHODS

Three peripheral blood samples of normal adults, 21 samples of CML patients, and one sample of a t(9;22)(q34;q11) positive cell-line were used.

RESULTS

Single nuclei with correctly detected signals amounted to 99.6% of nuclei analyzed after exclusion of overlapping nuclei and nuclei with incorrect signal detection. A cut-off value of 0.84 mum was defined to discriminate between translocation positive and negative nuclei based on the shortest distance between signals. Using this value, the false positive rate of the automated analysis for negative samples was 7.0%, whereas that of the manual analysis was 5.8%. Automated and manual results showed strong correlation (R(2) = 0.985), the mean difference of results was only 3.7%.

CONCLUSIONS

A reliable and objective automated analysis of large numbers of cells is possible, avoiding interobserver variability and producing statistically more accurate results than manual evaluation.