Does supplemental interphase FISH analysis to standard chromosom analysis improve the detection of myelodysplastic syndrome?
Abstract only 7060 Background: Our objective was to evaluate whether the addition of interphase FISH analysis to standard chromosome analysis (CA) improves the detection of chromosomal abnormalities in patients with work up for myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), acute myeloid leukemia, and myelodyspla...
Saved in:
| Published in: | Journal of clinical oncology Vol. 35; no. 15_suppl; p. 7060 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
| Format: | Journal Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
20-05-2017
|
| Online Access: | Get full text |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | Abstract only
7060
Background: Our objective was to evaluate whether the addition of interphase FISH analysis to standard chromosome analysis (CA) improves the detection of chromosomal abnormalities in patients with work up for myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), acute myeloid leukemia, and myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative disorders and thereby increases diagnostic and prognostic information. We performed a retrospective data review of all MDS orders between January and September 2015 at our institution and evaluated concurrent tests for discrepancies between CA and FISH results. Our aim was to evaluate best practices with regard to diagnostic test utilization, specifically to assess the diagnostic and prognostic value of FISH in addition to CA for patients with potential and known MDS. Methods: Retrospective data review of concurrent test orders of CA and myelodysplastic FISH panel were reviewed. The myelodysplastic FISH panel consists of screening for monosomy 5/deletion 5q, monosomy 7/deletion 7q, CEP7, trisomy 8, and D20S108 (20q12). The results of CA and FISH results were analyzed using a chi-square test to evaluate statistical significance. Results: A total of 1121 samples were queried, of which 55 were excluded due to inability to perform CA and limited diagnostic value of accompanying standalone FISH data on the 4 markers tested in this study. Analysis of the eligible 1066 samples showed that the standalone CA had significantly higher sensitivity (p < 0.0001) in detecting abnormal cases (N = 247, 23.17%) as compared to standalone FISH analysis (N = 180, 16.89%). Overall, 173 (16.23%) cases were determined to be abnormal by both methods. CA correctly interpreted 1059 of 1066 cases (99.34%).Only 7 samples were interpreted as normal by CA but were found to be abnormal by FISH. This results in overall 0.66% (2.76% of the abnormal cases) of abnormalities that would have been missed by CA only. Conclusions: These findings suggest that FISH studies with 4 markers used in this study provide limited additional utility in cases with a complete CA. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 0732-183X 1527-7755 |
| DOI: | 10.1200/JCO.2017.35.15_suppl.7060 |