ImmunoFISH Is a Reliable Technique for the Assessment of 1p and 19q Status in Oligodendrogliomas

Abstract

ObjectiveTo develop a new ImmunoFISH technique for the study of oligodendrogliomas by combining a standard immunohistochemical stain using MIB-1 antibody with a standard FISH technique using commercial 1p36 and 19q13 chromosomal probes.MethodsValidation was performed by two observers on a series of 36 pre-selected oligodendrogliomas and compared to the results previously determined by FISH alone.ResultsThe ImFISH technique is easy to perform and to analyze and is no more time-consuming than the usual FISH technique. Our results show that the inter-observer reliability of ImFISH is high (κ = 0.86 and 0.95 respectively for 1p and 19q). Compared to FISH, the ImFISH exhibits a very high sensitivity (∼100%) and specificity (∼90%) for 1p and/or 19q deleted cases. The sensitivity is high for normal cases (∼85%) and imbalanced cases (∼90%) with a specificity ranging between 50 and 85%. Finally, there were no significant differences between FISH and ImFISH results calculated on 60, 40 or 20 cells.ConclusionOur study demonstrates the reliability of the ImFISH technique in oligodendrogliomas and emphasizes its advantage in poorly cellular tumoral specimen.

Shallow whole-genome sequencing: a useful, easy to apply molecular technique for CNA detection on FFPE tumor tissue—a glioma-driven study

“…Unfortunately, because of its retrospective character, this work failed to measure inter-observer variability at diagnosis, which might be lower in comparison to the observations made in stored FFPE blocks, as DNA quality declines over time. Previous work [27] seems to indicate results are more concordant, although in contrast to this work, paired observations consistently resulted from the same slide, which is expected to bias outcome. Worth remarking, as this study shows, CNVseq appears more robust against a suboptimal DNA quality.…”

Diagnostic accuracy of 1p/19q codeletion tests in oligodendroglioma: A comprehensive meta‐analysis based on a Cochrane systematic review

“…Studies appear in alphabetical order of first author: Bigner 1999 [44], Blesa 2009 [30], Bouvier 2004 [55], Broholm 2008 [56], Burger 2001 [35], Clark 2013 [57], Cowell 2004 [72], Dahlback 2011 [37], Dubbink 2016 [69], Gadji 2009 [58], Harada 2011 [70], Hatanpaa 2003 [31], Horbinski 2012 [39], Jha 2011 [59], Mohapatra 2006 [33], Pesenti 2017 [34], Scheie 2006 [60], Smith 1999 [36] and Tsiatis 2010 [71]. (B) Graphical representation of FISH probe locations used in studies comparing FISH with other methods: Belaud‐Rotureau 2006 [38], Blesa 2009 [30], Bouvier 2004 [55], Broholm 2008 [56], Burger 2001 [35], Byeon 2014 [40], Chaturbedi 2011 [61], Clark 2013 [57], D'Haene 2019 [51], Duval 2014 [32], Duval 2015 [46], Gadji 2009 [58], Ghasimi 2016 [63], Hatanpaa 2003 [31], Hinrichs 2016 [64], Horbinski 2012 [39], Jha 2011 [59], Lass 2013 [45], Lhotska 2015 [65], Mohapatra 2006 [33], Na 2019 [52], Natté 2005 [50], Nigro 2001 [62], Park 2019 [53], Pesenti 2017 [34], Scheie 2006 [60], Senetta 2013 [47], Sim 2018 [54], Smith 1999 [36], Srebotnik‐Kirbis 2016 [48] and Uchida 2019 [49]. The top of the figure indicates a graphical representation of chromosome 1 (adapted from the GRCh38/hg38 Assembly).…”

“… (A) Graphical representation of regions analysed in studies comparing four tests: Blesa 2009 [ 30 ], Hatanpaa 2003 [ 31 ] and Duval 2014 [ 32 ], and (B) studies comparing three tests: Mohapatra 2006 [ 33 ], Pesenti 2017 [ 34 ], Burger 2001 [ 35 ], Smith 1999 [ 36 ], Dahlback 2011 [ 37 ], Belaud‐Rotureau 2006 [ 38 ], Horbinski 2012 [ 39 ] and Pesenti 2017 [ 34 ]. The top on both figures indicates a graphical representation of chromosome 1 (adapted from the GRCh38/hg38 Assembly).…”

Screening of Glioma Patients for 1p/19q Region with Fluorescent Probes

“…Earlier studies on molecular techniques are described in the literature to study the chromosomal status of tumor cells, including FISH, polymerase chain reaction, quantitative microsatellite analysis, loss of heterozygosity by microsatellite analysis, comparative genomic hybridization array and multiplex ligation -dependent probe. All these techniques have their advantages and disadvantages but the most widely used among them is FISH because it can be performed by fluorescent microscopy on paraffin embedded tumor tissue sections and is thus easily accessible to most pathology laboratories [11].…”