Fourth Updated ESACP Consensus Report on Diagnostic DNA Image Cytometry

Abstract

A task force of experts in the field of diagnostic DNA image cytometry, invited by the ESACP, and further scientists or physicians revealing experience in that diagnostic procedure (names are given in Addendum A), agreed upon the following 4th updated Consensus Report on Standardised Diagnostic DNA Image Cytometry during the 7th International Congress of that society in Caen, 2001. This report is based on the three preceding ones [6,14,17]. It deals with the following items: – Critical review and update of the definitions given in the 1997 Consensus Update; – Review and detailed description of basic terms, principles and algorithms for diagnostic interpretation; – Recommendations concerning diagnostic or prognostic applications in specific fields of tumour pathology. This update is not aimed to substitute the 1997 consensus, but to make necessary addenda and give more detailed descriptions of those items not unequivocally to interpret by potential users of the methodology.

Microsatellite instability and DNA ploidy in colorectal cancer

“…Cytospins were Feulgen-stained with pararosanilin under standardized conditions, and cytometric analysis was performed on a fully automated DNA image cytometer (QPath; Leica, Cambridge, UK). 23,24 At least 3000 objects per slide (and up to 5000 objects per slide) were scanned automatically using predefined densitometric and geometric filters. The following histogram descriptors were calculated from each cancer: ploidy (diploid or nondiploid), analysis of S-phase, the percentage of cells in the histogram with a DNA content exceeding 2.5C and 5C (referred to as the 'c-exceeding rate' [cER]; or 2.5cER and 5cER), and the Boecking malignancy grade.…”

“…The following histogram descriptors were calculated from each cancer: ploidy (diploid or nondiploid), analysis of S-phase, the percentage of cells in the histogram with a DNA content exceeding 2.5C and 5C (referred to as the 'c-exceeding rate' [cER]; or 2.5cER and 5cER), and the Boecking malignancy grade. 24 The Multicycle program (Phoenix Flow Systems, San Diego, Calif) was used to calculate the percentage of cells in G 0 ,G 1 -phase, S-phase, G 2 M-phase, and above G 2 M-phase in the cell cycle. Tumors with a DNA index (DI) >0.9 or <1.1 were regarded as diploid, whereas tumors with a DI <0.9 or !1.1 were regarded as aneuploid.…”

MOS, aneuploidy and the ploidy cycle of cancer cells

“…Somatic polyploidy (endopolyploidy) is generally rare in normal mammalian cells (Nagl, 1978), yet frequently found in human tumors, particularly as aneuploidy (Haroske et al, 2001;Ho¨glund et al, 2002). A key molecular regulator of this phenomenon is p53, whose deficiency is permissive for the bypass of mitotic catastrophe and the creation and survival of tetraploid cells, a metastable intermediate between normal diploidy and oncogenic aneuploidy (Storchova and Pellman, 2004;Castedo et al, 2004Castedo et al, , 2006Ganem and Pellman, 2007;Thompson and Compton, 2010).…”

Morphoquantitative Analysis of the Intraepithelial Neoplasic Uterine Cells by Computer Image System

“…The usage of different fixing agents with different fixation methods shows some varieties about chromogen intensity in the ionic hydrogen concentration and the hydrolise time in Feulgen's reaction (Böhm;Böhm et al, 1968) that could interfere in the condensation of chromatin's spatial distribution and, apart from tracking the DNA, does the same with proteins (Stedman & Stedman, 1950), Umayahara et al (2002). Meanwhile, uncharacteristic DNA distributions, for some authors, in comparison with results from the epithelial of the uterine cervix cytrometry and its DNA, aren't an early malignity diagnostic method, Haroske et al (2001), Ishikawa et al (2002). Most of them consider aneuploidia as a malignity factor (Bollmann, 2003).…”