2022
DOI: 10.1016/j.pathol.2021.05.100
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Detection of NTRK fusions in glioblastoma: fluorescent in situ hybridisation is more useful than pan-TRK immunohistochemistry as a screening tool prior to RNA sequencing

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 33 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In cases with a suspicion of NTRK fusions, alternative FISH or NGS analysis is recommended. FISH is considered preferred to pan‐TRK immunohistochemistry as a screening test prior to RNA‐seq‐based NGS 22,23 . In the current study, NTRK3 rearrangement was identified by FISH using NTRK1/NTRK2/NTRK3 break‐apart probes.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 88%
“…In cases with a suspicion of NTRK fusions, alternative FISH or NGS analysis is recommended. FISH is considered preferred to pan‐TRK immunohistochemistry as a screening test prior to RNA‐seq‐based NGS 22,23 . In the current study, NTRK3 rearrangement was identified by FISH using NTRK1/NTRK2/NTRK3 break‐apart probes.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 88%
“…Screening of NTRK -fusions is usually performed at molecular level using NGS or FISH technique ( 12 ), DNA or RNA targeted testing. However, the molecular technique is costly, time-consuming, and unavailable in most centers, and sometimes associated with sampling errors due to nucleic acid degradation.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…They do not provide additional information about the fusion partner. Instead, FISH technique was found more useful than Pan-Trk IHC as a screening tool to detect NTRK-fusion prior to RNA sequencing ( 12 ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Tumour samples devoid of the molecular alterations investigated by the IGFA were also included as negative controls with a particular selection of cases with atypical, doubtful or false positive FISH or IHC results. The FFPE tumour samples which served initially for IHC, FISH and RNA/DNA NGS analyses (and the results of these analyses: ALK, ROS1 and pan-TRK IHC; ALK, ROS1, RET, NTRK1, NTRK2, NTRK3 FISH; MET exon 14 skipping mutation and RNA Seq analyses using ARCHER Fusion Plex Lung kit on Illumina sequencing performed as described in our previous works) were collected for pursuing molecular analyses using the IGFA 15–19. Surgical and biopsy specimens with sufficient material (ie, allowing a new tissue section for an IGFA analysis) were selected.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%