Detection of Chromosomal Aberrations in Prostate Cancer by Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization (FISH)

Challenges and solutions in FISH for formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue: A scoping review

Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) has revolutionized molecular cytogenetic analysis since the 1980s, enabling precise localization of DNA sequences in cells and tissues. Despite its relevance, applying FISH to formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue samples encounters significant technical challenges. This review addresses the main issues encountered in this context, such as inadequate fixation, contamination, block and slide age, inadequate pretreatment, and FISH technique. Proposed solutions include optimized pretreatment protocols, monitoring of blockage, careful selection of probes, and thorough analysis of results. Implementing good laboratory practices and quality control strategies are essential to ensure reliable results. Additionally, the use of emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence and digital pathology offers new perspectives for improving the efficiency and accuracy of FISH in FFPE samples. This review highlights the importance of a careful and personalized approach to overcome the technical challenges associated with FISH in FFPE samples, strengthening its role in research and clinical diagnosis. RESEARCH HIGHLIGHTS: Few FISH studies on FFPE: The scarcity of studies specifically addressing FISH applications in FFPE tissues highlights a critical gap in the literature. Troubleshooting FISH in FFPE tissues: Identifying and addressing common challenges in FISH techniques when applied to FFPE samples, such as signal quality and hybridization efficiency. Critical aspects of FISH technique: Discuss the main technical considerations crucial for successful FISH in FFPE tissues, including sample preparation, probe selection, and protocol optimization.

Molecular methods in cancer diagnostics: a short review

BACKGROUND

One of the ailments with the greatest fatality rates in the 21st century is cancer. Globally, molecular methods are widely employed to treat cancer-related disorders, and the body of research on this subject is growing yearly. A thorough and critical summary of the data supporting molecular methods for illnesses linked to cancer is required.

OBJECTIVE

In order to guide clinical practice and future research, it is important to examine and summarize the systematic reviews (SRs) that evaluate the efficacy and safety of molecular methods for disorders associated to cancer.

METHODS

We developed a comprehensive search strategy to find relevant articles from electronic databases like PubMed, Google Scholar, Web of Science (WoS), or Scopus. We looked through the literature and determined which diagnostic methods in cancer genetics were particularly reliable. We used phrases like 'cancer genetics', genetic susceptibility, Hereditary cancer, cancer risk assessment, 'cancer diagnostic tools', cancer screening', biomarkers, and molecular diagnostics, reviews and meta-analyses evaluating the efficacy and safety of molecular therapies for cancer-related disorders. Research that only consider treatment modalities that don't necessitate genetic or molecular diagnostics fall under the exclusion criteria.

RESULTS

The results of this comprehensive review clearly demonstrate the transformative impact of molecular methods in the realm of cancer genetics.This review underscores how these technologies have empowered researchers and clinicians to identify and understand key genetic alterations that drive malignancy, ranging from point mutations to structural variations. Such insights are instrumental in pinpointing critical oncogenic drivers and potential therapeutic targets, thus opening the door for methods in precision medicine that can significantly improve patient outcomes.

LIMITATION

The search does not specify a timeframe for publication inclusion, it may have missed recent advancements or changes in the field's landscape of molecular methods for cancer. As a result, it may not have included the most recent developments in the field.

CONCLUSION

After conducting an in-depth study on the molecular methods in cancer genetics, it is evident that these cutting-edge technologies have revolutionized the field of oncology, providing researchers and clinicians with powerful tools to unravel the complexities of cancer at the genetic level. The integration of molecular methods techniques has not only enhanced our understanding of cancer etiology, progression, and treatment response but has also opened new avenues for personalized medicine and targeted therapies, leading to improved patient outcomes.

Y chromosome losses are exceedingly rare in prostate cancer and unrelated to patient age

BACKGROUND

Loss of the Y chromosome is a frequently reported chromosomal abnormality in many tumor types. This study was undertaken to investigate the frequency of Y chromosome losses and this chromosomal abnormality might play a potential role in prostate cancer.

METHODS

A preexisting prostate cancer tissue microarray (TMA) containing samples of 3,261 patients treated by radical prostatectomy with clinical follow-up data was used in this study. TMA sections were analyzed by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) using a dual labeling probe for the centromeres of the X and Y chromosome.

RESULTS

Unequivocal losses of the Y chromosome were seen in only 12 of 2,053 analyzable cases. No significant associations were found between Y loss and patient age, pT stage, and the risk of PSA recurrence. Interestingly, in our study the presence of Y losses was significantly associated with high Gleason grade (P = 0.0034).

CONCLUSIONS

Loss of the Y chromosome is a rare event in prostate cancer. Y losses occur in much higher rates in most other cancer types. For this reason, we suggest that the expression of at least one Y chromosome gene is essential for prostate epithelial cells and it is possible that such a gene could represent a suitable target for future therapy of prostate cancer.

Analysis of fluorescence in situ hybridization, mtDNA quantification, and mtDNA sequence for the detection of early bladder cancer

We designed this study to test the sensitivities of cytology, the nuclear matrix protein 22 (NMP22) assay, and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) in the early detection of urothelial carcinoma, and to identify mtDNA alterations in urinary epithelial cells. We collected 41 urine samples and 26 corresponding peripheral blood samples from patients with clinically suspected urothelial carcinoma. The FISH and NMP22 assays detected 92.1% of the cancers, and cytology detected 60.5%. In the low-grade group, NMP22 and FISH analyses were more sensitive than cytology, but in the high-grade group, all three methods showed approximately 90% sensitivity. Overall, the FISH and NMP22, or FISH and cytology assays combined detected 97.4% of cancers, while cytology with NMP22 detected 92.1%. In the low-grade group, the sensitivity of the three methods combined was above 80%, but in high-grade group, the combined sensitivity was approximately 100%. In the mtDNA control region, we detected characteristic heteroplasmic mtDNA substitution mutations in 1 patient and a mtDNA length heteroplasmic mutation in 303 polyC or 16184 poly C in 20 patients. Overall, urothelial carcinoma-specific mtDNA mutations were observed in 20 of the 26 patients (76.9%). The average mtDNA copy numbers in urine samples and corresponding peripheral blood samples (83.45 +/- 60.36 and 39.0 +/- 24.38, respectively) (mean +/- standard deviation [SD]) differed significantly (P < 0.001). The mtDNA copy numbers in the urine samples from patients with high-grade and low-grade tumors (81.83 +/- 67.78 and 86.49 +/- 46.69, respectively) did not differ significantly (P = 0.589). In conclusion, the FISH assay showed the highest sensitivity for detecting low-grade urothelial carcinoma, and mtDNA copy numbers in urine samples were higher than those in the corresponding peripheral blood samples. The frequency of mtDNA mutations in the D-loop region in patients with cancer was approximately 80% in our study. This report further supports the significance of genetic alteration in urothelial carcinoma and the clinical utility of the FISH, mtDNA quantitation polymerase chain reaction, mtDNA sequencing, and capillary electrophoresis for this purpose.

Allelotypes and Fluorescence In situ Hybridization Profiles of Poorly Differentiated Endocrine Carcinomas of Different Sites

PURPOSE

The aim of this work was to investigate the genotypic profiles of 36 poorly differentiated endocrine carcinoma (PDEC) of different sites to verify if their very similar phenotype may reflect similar pattern of genetic anomalies and if useful diagnostic or prognostic markers may be pointed out.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

All tumors were microallelotyped at 57 microsatellite on 11 autosomes and the allelotypes of a selected panel of tumors were validated by interphasic fluorescence in situ hybridization with centromeric probes for chromosomes 1, 3, 6, 11, 17, and 18 and a probe specific for p53.

RESULTS

Regardless of the primary sites, PDECs exhibit very complex allelotypes (86%) and TP53 allelic imbalance (89%). Among these cases, fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis confirmed the presence of multiple aneusomies and a chromosome instability phenotype. Very low percentage of allelic imbalance (AI) and few aneuploidies were detected in only five PDECs for which an overall longer survival was observed. We found recurrent AI on 3p, 5, and 11q13 in lung PDECs, on 5q21, 8p, and 18q21 in colorectal PDECs and on 7 and 11q22 in gastric PDECs. Significantly better outcome was observed in patients with PDEC exhibiting 8q AIs and absence of AI at chromosome regions 6q25 and 6p.

CONCLUSIONS

The concurrence of p53 inactivation and aneuploidies or chromosome instability are the main features of PDECs. However, the specific allelotypes observed in relation to primary site support the hypothesis that PDECs and exocrine carcinomas of all sites may share early pathogenetic mechanisms. Molecular markers of potential diagnostic and prognostic values for PDECs of different sites have been identified.