No abstract available.
Fluorescence* ; In Situ Hybridization*

Consensus ; In Situ Hybridization, Fluorescence

No abstract available.
Humans ; In Situ Hybridization, Fluorescence* ; Infant, Newborn*

Humans ; In Situ Hybridization, Fluorescence ; methods ; Paraffin

BACKGROUND: The amplification of murine double minutes (MDM2) is the primary feature of well-differentiated liposarcomas (WDLPS) and dedifferentiated liposarcomas (DDLPS), while DDIT3 rearrangement is the main one of myxoid liposarcomas (MLPS). Our aim was to evaluate the added value of MDM2 amplification and DDIT3 rearrangement in making a diagnosis and classifying lipogenic tumors. METHODS: Eighty-two cases of liposarcoma and 60 lipomas diagnosed between 1995 and 2010 were analysed for MDM2 amplification and DDIT3 rearrangement using a fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). The subtypes of liposarcoma were reclassified according to the molecular results, whose results were reviewed with an analysis of the relevant histologic and immunohistochemical findings. RESULTS: One case of lipoma (1.67%) was reclassified as a WDLPS. Of the liposarcomas, 13.4% (16/82) were reclassified after the molecular testing. Five cases of MLPS were reclassified as four cases of DDLPS and one case of myxoid lipoma. Two cases of WDLPS were reclassified as one case of spindle cell lipoma and another case of myxofibrosarcoma. Four cases of DDLPS were reclassified as two cases of leiomyosarcoma, one case of angiomyolipoma and another case of fibroinflammatory lesion. Of the six cases of pleomorphic liposarcoma, five were reclassified as DDLPS. CONCLUSIONS: In our series, a critical revision of diagnosis was found at a rate of 3.5% (5/142) after a review of the lipomatous lesions. The uses of molecular testing by MDM2 and DDIT3 FISH were valuable to make an accurate subtyping of liposarcomas as well as to differentiate WDLPS from benign lipomatous tumor.
Angiomyolipoma ; Fluorescence ; In Situ Hybridization ; In Situ Hybridization, Fluorescence ; Leiomyosarcoma ; Lipoma ; Liposarcoma ; Liposarcoma, Myxoid

PURPOSE: The recent discovery and characterization of an oncogenic ROS1 gene rearrangement has raised significant interest because small molecule inhibitors are effective in these tumors. The aim of this study was to determine frequency and clinicopathological features associated with ROS1 rearrangement in patients with cholangiocarcinoma (CCA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 261 patients who underwent surgery for CCA between October 1997 and August 2013 were identified from an international, multi-institutional database. ROS1 rearrangement was evaluated by break-apart fluorescence in situ hybridization using tissue microarrays of these patients. RESULTS: Of 261 CCA evaluated, three cases (1.1%) showed ROS1 rearrangement by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), all of which were derived from intrahepatic origin. ROS1 protein expression was observed in 38 samples (19.1%). Significantly larger tumor size was observed in ROS1 immunohistochemistry (IHC)–negative patients compared with ROS1 IHC–positive patients. ROS1 FISH–positive patients had a single tumor with a median size of 4 cm and well-to-moderate differentiation. Overall, there was no difference in terms of baseline characteristics, overall survival, and recurrence-free survival between ROS1-positive and -negative patients. CONCLUSION: ROS1 rearrangement was detected in 1.1% of CCA patients. Although rare, conduct of clinical trials using ROS1 inhibitors in these genetically unique patients is warranted.
Cholangiocarcinoma* ; Fluorescence ; Gene Rearrangement ; Humans ; Immunohistochemistry ; In Situ Hybridization ; In Situ Hybridization, Fluorescence ; Incidence*

No abstract available.
Embryonic Structures* ; Fluorescence* ; Humans* ; In Situ Hybridization* ; Preimplantation Diagnosis*

PURPOSE: Valid determination of HER2 status is a prerequisite to establish an adequate treatment strategy for breast cancer patients, regardless of the disease stage. The goal of this study was to examine the feasibility of the newly developed silver-enhanced in situ hybridization (SISH) technique as an alternative to fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) for HER2 assay in primary invasive breast cancer. METHODS: FISH and SISH for HER2 amplification were performed using tissue microarray. Both methods were used in 257 consecutive primary breast cancers. RESULTS: HER2 amplification was observed in 62 (23.1%) of a total of 257 breast cancers based on SISH. Of the 257 breast cancers measured using both methods, the results of the two methods were consistent in 248 (concordance, 96.5%; kappa=0.903). When we compared HER2 amplification in the primary tumor with the metastatic lymph nodes of the same patients, HER2 amplification was observed in nine cases (14.0%) out of 64 cases in which HER2 was not amplified in the primary tumors. In contrast, HER2 status was completely preserved in metastatic lymph nodes showing HER2 amplification in the primary tumor. CONCLUSION: These results indicate that SISH can be a feasible alternative to FISH in the clinical setting. In node-positive breast cancer, confirmation of the HER2 status of the metastatic lymph nodes appears to be mandatory, regardless of the HER2 status of the primary tumors.
Breast ; Breast Neoplasms ; Fluorescence ; Humans ; In Situ Hybridization ; Lymph Nodes

PURPOSE: Most tests developed for the determination of the HER2 status still require validation, although identification of the HER2 status is important for predicting the response to specific systemic therapy in breast cancer. Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and immunohistochemistry (IHC) were performed for the HER2 expression on the tissue microarray (TMA) from primary breast cancers to validate the feasibility of IHC for HER2 assay. METHODS: A TMA was constructed from 134~231 primary breast cancers. FISH and IHC were repeated more than twice, and the results were analyzed. Three kinds of primary antibody for IHC were used and compared. RESULTS: The HER2 was amplified by FISH in 24~28% of breast cancer with a concordance between multiple assays of 92~100% (kappa=0.994-0.965), while the HER2 was overexpressed in 21~27% by IHC. The HER2 was amplified in 70~100% of the IHC 3+ cases, but was observed in only 45~78% and 5~12% of the IHC 2+ and IHC 0~1+ cases, respectively. The results from the IHC, using 3 different primary antibodies to HER2, were in good agreement each other at 88~92% (kappa=0.902-0.799). CONCLUSION: The results of the FISH appeared to be more reproducible than those of the IHC in the current study. The results of the IHC were not different from each other according to primary antibody used. However, a considerable proportions of the IHC positive cases were not confirmed by the FISH. This report indicates a need to improve the laboratory quality control measures when using the IHC for the HER2 assay, including the periodic testing for the concordance with FISH.
Antibodies ; Breast Neoplasms* ; Breast* ; Fluorescence* ; Immunohistochemistry* ; In Situ Hybridization* ; Quality Control

Comet Assay ; DNA Damage ; DNA Repair ; In Situ Hybridization, Fluorescence ; methods