ABSTRACT
Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) is a reliable method for tagging centromeric regions of specific chromosomes in interphase nuclei. Not only is FISH useful for chromosome enumeration, but as region-specific chromosome probes are developed, the clinical applications and potentials for use by pathologists are extensive. This technique lends itself particularly to use in cytology preparations because the cells are disaggregated and monolayer preparations yield excellent technical hybridization results. Over a 7-mo period we processed cytologic samples in an attempt to define and outline a method for optimal specimen processing for FISH use in cell suspensions, techniques applicable to all fresh cytology specimens which can also be used for the processing of surgical pathology aspirates and other material. All samples should be promptly processed to ensure specimen viability, and triaged on an individual basis to ensure preparation of moderately cellular monolayered cytospins. Equivalent nuclear probe signals have been obtained with several sample fixation methods: air-drying, 95% ethanol, methanol (Diff-Quik fixative), and Carnoy's solution. No difference was noted in the nuclear probe signals or specimen adhesion on positively charged or noncharged slides. After initial fixation our slides remained at room temperature until FISH was performed, without any adverse effects. A short digestion with proteinase K and subsequent rehybridization yielded positive results on samples that originally yielded poor nuclear probe signals.
Subject(s)
In Situ Hybridization, Fluorescence/methods , Cell Biology , HumansABSTRACT
A comparative study of primary prostatic tumors utilizing conventional metaphase analysis of prostate tumor cultures and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) analysis of paraffin-embedded tissue sections revealed significant differences in type and extent of cytogenetic aberrations. Clonal trisomy 7 was identified in two tumors by metaphase analysis of prostate cultures, but not confirmed in either case by FISH analysis. True gain of chromosome 8 was revealed by FISH analysis in malignant epithelium of four tumors but not in adjacent normal or hyperplastic glands. Neither gain nor loss of this chromosome was observed by metaphase analysis in any of the tumors. Significant monosomy and nullisomy of chromosome 10 was identified in one case by FISH, but no cells with gain or loss of chromosome 10 were observed by metaphase analysis. Significant loss of the Y chromosome was revealed in one tumor by FISH, but no cells with -Y were identified by metaphase analysis. Clonal loss of the Y chromosome was identified in two other tumors by metaphase analysis. Paraffin FISH analysis of these tumors revealed overall monosomy in both, although in one tumor there was extensive nodular loss of the Y chromosome. Paraffin FISH analysis permits identification of cytogenetic aberrations in areas identified as carcinoma (CaP), prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN), and benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). This technique appears more informative in defining the true extent and nature of cytogenetic aberrations in prostate cancer than metaphase analysis of prostate tumor cultures.
