Molecular combing compared to Southern blot for measuring D4Z4 contractions in FSHD.

We compare molecular combing to Southern blot in the analysis of the facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy type 1 locus (FSHD1) on chromosome 4q35-qter (chr 4q) in genomic DNA specimens sent to a clinical laboratory for FSHD testing. A de-identified set of 87 genomic DNA specimens determined by Southern blot as normal (n = 71), abnormal with D4Z4 macrosatellite repeat array contractions (n = 7), indeterminate (n = 6), borderline (n = 2), or mosaic (n = 1) was independently re-analyzed by molecular combing in a blinded fashion. The molecular combing results were identical to the Southern blot results in 75 (86%) of cases. All contractions (n = 7) and mosaics (n = 1) detected by Southern blot were confirmed by molecular combing. Of the 71 samples with normal Southern blot results, 67 (94%) had concordant molecular combing results. The four discrepancies were either mosaic (n = 2), rearranged (n = 1), or borderline by molecular combing (n = 1). All indeterminate Southern blot results (n = 6) were resolved by molecular combing as either normal (n = 4), borderline (n = 1), or rearranged (n = 1). The two borderline Southern blot results showed a D4Z4 contraction on the chr 4qA allele and a normal result by molecular combing. Molecular combing overcomes a number of technical limitations of Southern blot by providing direct visualization of D4Z4 macrosatellite repeat arrays on specific chr 4q and chr 10q alleles and more precise D4Z4 repeat sizing. This study suggests that molecular combing has superior analytical validity compared to Southern blot for determining D4Z4 contraction size, detecting mosaicism, and resolving borderline and indeterminate Southern blot results. Further studies are needed to establish the clinical validity and diagnostic accuracy of these findings in FSHD.

Spectral Karyotyping for identification of constitutional chromosomal abnormalities at a national reference laboratory.

Spectral karyotyping is a diagnostic tool that allows visualization of chromosomes in different colors using the FISH technology and a spectral imaging system. To assess the value of spectral karyotyping analysis for identifying constitutional supernumerary marker chromosomes or derivative chromosomes at a national reference laboratory, we reviewed the results of 179 consecutive clinical samples (31 prenatal and 148 postnatal) submitted for spectral karyotyping. Over 90% of the cases were requested to identify either small supernumerary marker chromosomes (sSMCs) or chromosomal exchange material detected by G-banded chromosome analysis. We also reviewed clinical indications of those cases with marker chromosomes in which chromosomal origin was identified by spectral karyotyping. Our results showed that spectral karyotyping identified the chromosomal origin of marker chromosomes or the source of derivative chromosomal material in 158 (88%) of the 179 clinical cases; the identification rate was slightly higher for postnatal (89%) compared to prenatal (84%) cases. Cases in which the origin could not be identified had either a small marker chromosome present at a very low level of mosaicism (< 10%), or contained very little euchromatic material. Supplemental FISH analysis confirmed the spectral karyotyping results in all 158 cases. Clinical indications for prenatal cases were mainly for marker identification after amniocentesis. For postnatal cases, the primary indications were developmental delay and multiple congenital anomalies (MCA). The most frequently encountered markers were of chromosome 15 origin for satellited chromosomes, and chromosomes 2 and 16 for non-satellited chromosomes. We were able to obtain pertinent clinical information for 47% (41/88) of cases with an identified abnormal chromosome. We conclude that spectral karyotyping is sufficiently reliable for use and provides a valuable diagnostic tool for establishing the origin of supernumerary marker chromosomes or derivative chromosomal material that cannot be identified with standard cytogenetic techniques.

Fluorescence in situ hybridization and K-ras analyses improve diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of solid pancreatic masses.

OBJECTIVES: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) is the main diagnostic modality for pancreatic mass lesions. However, cytology is often indeterminate, leading to repeat FNAs and delay in care. Here, we evaluate whether combining routine cytology with fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and K-ras/p53 analyses improves diagnostic yield of pancreatic EUS-FNA. METHODS: Fifty EUS-FNAs of pancreatic masses in 46 patients were retrospectively analyzed. Mean follow-up was 68 months. Thirteen initial cytologic samples (26%) were benign, 23 malignant (46%), and 14 atypical (28%). We performed FISH for p16, p53, LPL, c-Myc, MALT1, topoisomerase 2/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2, and EGFR, as well as K-ras/p53 mutational analyses. RESULTS: On final diagnosis, 11 (79%) of atypical FNAs were malignant, and 3 benign (21%). Fluorescence in situ hybridization was negative in all benign and all atypical samples with final benign diagnosis. Fluorescence in situ hybridization plus K-ras analysis correctly identified 60% of atypical FNAs with final malignant diagnosis. Combination of routine cytology with positive FISH and K-ras analyses yielded 87.9% sensitivity, 93.8% specificity, 96.7% positive predictive value, 78.9% negative predictive value, and 89.8% accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: Combining routine cytology with FISH and K-ras analyses improves diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA of solid pancreatic masses. We propose to include these ancillary tests in the workup of atypical cytology from pancreatic EUS-FNA.