Comparison of fluorescence in situ hybridization, p57 immunostaining, flow cytometry, and digital image analysis for diagnosing molar and nonmolar products of conception

Benjamin R. Kipp, Rhett P. Ketterling, Trynda N. Oberg, Margot A. Cousin, Amy M. Plagge, Anne E. Wiktor, Johnita M. Ihrke, Cecelia H. Meyers, William G. Morice, Kevin C. Halling, Amy C. Clayton

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

20 Scopus citations

Abstract

Pathologic examination of products of conception (POC) is used to differentiate hydropic abortus (HA), partial hydatidiform mole (PM), and complete hydatidiform mole (CM). Histologic classification of POC specimens can be difficult, and ancillary testing is often required for a definitive diagnosis. This study evaluated 66 POC specimens by flow cytometry, digital image analysis, p57 immunohistochemical analysis, and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). The final diagnosis, based on the combined analysis of all test results, included 33 HAs, 24 PMs, and 9 CMs. The p57 immunostain identified 9 CMs that were evaluated as nontriploid by all other techniques. FISH seems to have the best accuracy (100%) for determining whether a specimen contains a triploid chromosome complement. These data suggest that the combination of p57 and FISH seems to be the best ancillary testing strategy to aid pathologists in the appropriate identification of CM, PM, and HA in POC specimens.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)196-204
Number of pages9
JournalAmerican journal of clinical pathology
Volume133
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 1 2010

Keywords

  • DNA ploidy
  • FISH
  • Fluorescence in situ hybridization
  • Gestational trophoblastic disease
  • Hydropic abortus
  • Products of conception

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pathology and Forensic Medicine

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Comparison of fluorescence in situ hybridization, p57 immunostaining, flow cytometry, and digital image analysis for diagnosing molar and nonmolar products of conception'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this

    Kipp, B. R., Ketterling, R. P., Oberg, T. N., Cousin, M. A., Plagge, A. M., Wiktor, A. E., Ihrke, J. M., Meyers, C. H., Morice, W. G., Halling, K. C., & Clayton, A. C. (2010). Comparison of fluorescence in situ hybridization, p57 immunostaining, flow cytometry, and digital image analysis for diagnosing molar and nonmolar products of conception. American journal of clinical pathology, 133(2), 196-204. https://doi.org/10.1309/AJCPV7BRDUCX0WAQ