Use of fluorescent in situ hybridization for deoxyribonucleic acid ploidy analysis of prostatic adenocarcinoma

D. L. Persons, D. J. Gibney, J. A. Katzmann, M. M. Lieber, G. M. Farrow, Robert Brian Jenkins

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

45 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Fluorescent in situ hybridization using 2 chromosome specific centromere probes was evaluated as a method of ploidy analysis in touch preparations from 50 radical prostatectomy specimens. Tumors were classified as aneuploid by fluorescent in situ hybridization when nuclei had an abnormal copy number (aneusomic) for either chromosome centromere 8 or 12. Tetraploid tumors were defined as those with 4 copies (tetrasomic) of chromosome centromeres 8 and 12. The fluorescent in situ hybridization ploidy patterns were compared to the deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) ploidy patterns subsequently obtained by flow cytometry on the same tissue following paraffin embedding. Concordant fluorescent in situ hybridization and flow cytometry ploidy classification was obtained in 82% of the cases (p ≤0.0001). Of 7 aneuploid tumors 3 were identified by both methods. Trisomy 8 was detected by fluorescent in situ hybridization in 3 cases that were classified as DNA diploid (2 tumors) and DNA tetraploid (1 tumor). Conversely, flow cytometry detected aneuploidy (hypotetraploidy) in 1 tumor when the fluorescent in situ hybridization results were consistent with tetraploidy. Overall, fluorescent in situ hybridization was more sensitive in aneuploidy detection (6 of 7 cases) than flow cytometry (4 of 7). Of 19 tetraploid cases 5 had discordant fluorescent in situ hybridization and flow cytometry results. However, all 5 cases contained low levels of tetraploidy and the discrepant results were most likely due to the limits of precision of 1 or both methods. In conclusion, we demonstrated that fluorescent in situ hybridization ploidy analysis can be rapidly performed on fresh touch preparations of prostate tissue. This preliminary study demonstrates that the ploidy result determined by fluorescent in situ hybridization correlates well with that obtained by flow cytometry. More complete fluorescent in situ hybridization studies of prostate carcinoma will require additional probes for other chromosomes.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)120-125
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Urology
Volume150
Issue number1
StatePublished - 1993

Fingerprint

Ploidies
Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization
Adenocarcinoma
DNA
Tetraploidy
Flow Cytometry
Aneuploidy
Centromere
Chromosomes, Human, Pair 12
Chromosomes, Human, Pair 8
Neoplasms
Touch
Prostate
Paraffin Embedding
Chromosomes, Human, Pair 2
Prostatectomy
Diploidy
Chromosomes
Carcinoma

Keywords

  • adenocarcinoma
  • DNA
  • ploidies
  • prostatic neoplasms

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Cite this

Persons, D. L., Gibney, D. J., Katzmann, J. A., Lieber, M. M., Farrow, G. M., & Jenkins, R. B. (1993). Use of fluorescent in situ hybridization for deoxyribonucleic acid ploidy analysis of prostatic adenocarcinoma. Journal of Urology, 150(1), 120-125.

Use of fluorescent in situ hybridization for deoxyribonucleic acid ploidy analysis of prostatic adenocarcinoma. / Persons, D. L.; Gibney, D. J.; Katzmann, J. A.; Lieber, M. M.; Farrow, G. M.; Jenkins, Robert Brian.

In: Journal of Urology, Vol. 150, No. 1, 1993, p. 120-125.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Persons, DL, Gibney, DJ, Katzmann, JA, Lieber, MM, Farrow, GM & Jenkins, RB 1993, 'Use of fluorescent in situ hybridization for deoxyribonucleic acid ploidy analysis of prostatic adenocarcinoma', Journal of Urology, vol. 150, no. 1, pp. 120-125.
Persons, D. L. ; Gibney, D. J. ; Katzmann, J. A. ; Lieber, M. M. ; Farrow, G. M. ; Jenkins, Robert Brian. / Use of fluorescent in situ hybridization for deoxyribonucleic acid ploidy analysis of prostatic adenocarcinoma. In: Journal of Urology. 1993 ; Vol. 150, No. 1. pp. 120-125.
@article{e6bc5383f8404b72b47b6ca6969847fc,
title = "Use of fluorescent in situ hybridization for deoxyribonucleic acid ploidy analysis of prostatic adenocarcinoma",
abstract = "Fluorescent in situ hybridization using 2 chromosome specific centromere probes was evaluated as a method of ploidy analysis in touch preparations from 50 radical prostatectomy specimens. Tumors were classified as aneuploid by fluorescent in situ hybridization when nuclei had an abnormal copy number (aneusomic) for either chromosome centromere 8 or 12. Tetraploid tumors were defined as those with 4 copies (tetrasomic) of chromosome centromeres 8 and 12. The fluorescent in situ hybridization ploidy patterns were compared to the deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) ploidy patterns subsequently obtained by flow cytometry on the same tissue following paraffin embedding. Concordant fluorescent in situ hybridization and flow cytometry ploidy classification was obtained in 82{\%} of the cases (p ≤0.0001). Of 7 aneuploid tumors 3 were identified by both methods. Trisomy 8 was detected by fluorescent in situ hybridization in 3 cases that were classified as DNA diploid (2 tumors) and DNA tetraploid (1 tumor). Conversely, flow cytometry detected aneuploidy (hypotetraploidy) in 1 tumor when the fluorescent in situ hybridization results were consistent with tetraploidy. Overall, fluorescent in situ hybridization was more sensitive in aneuploidy detection (6 of 7 cases) than flow cytometry (4 of 7). Of 19 tetraploid cases 5 had discordant fluorescent in situ hybridization and flow cytometry results. However, all 5 cases contained low levels of tetraploidy and the discrepant results were most likely due to the limits of precision of 1 or both methods. In conclusion, we demonstrated that fluorescent in situ hybridization ploidy analysis can be rapidly performed on fresh touch preparations of prostate tissue. This preliminary study demonstrates that the ploidy result determined by fluorescent in situ hybridization correlates well with that obtained by flow cytometry. More complete fluorescent in situ hybridization studies of prostate carcinoma will require additional probes for other chromosomes.",
keywords = "adenocarcinoma, DNA, ploidies, prostatic neoplasms",
author = "Persons, {D. L.} and Gibney, {D. J.} and Katzmann, {J. A.} and Lieber, {M. M.} and Farrow, {G. M.} and Jenkins, {Robert Brian}",
year = "1993",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "150",
pages = "120--125",
journal = "Journal of Urology",
issn = "0022-5347",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Use of fluorescent in situ hybridization for deoxyribonucleic acid ploidy analysis of prostatic adenocarcinoma

AU - Persons, D. L.

AU - Gibney, D. J.

AU - Katzmann, J. A.

AU - Lieber, M. M.

AU - Farrow, G. M.

AU - Jenkins, Robert Brian

PY - 1993

Y1 - 1993

N2 - Fluorescent in situ hybridization using 2 chromosome specific centromere probes was evaluated as a method of ploidy analysis in touch preparations from 50 radical prostatectomy specimens. Tumors were classified as aneuploid by fluorescent in situ hybridization when nuclei had an abnormal copy number (aneusomic) for either chromosome centromere 8 or 12. Tetraploid tumors were defined as those with 4 copies (tetrasomic) of chromosome centromeres 8 and 12. The fluorescent in situ hybridization ploidy patterns were compared to the deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) ploidy patterns subsequently obtained by flow cytometry on the same tissue following paraffin embedding. Concordant fluorescent in situ hybridization and flow cytometry ploidy classification was obtained in 82% of the cases (p ≤0.0001). Of 7 aneuploid tumors 3 were identified by both methods. Trisomy 8 was detected by fluorescent in situ hybridization in 3 cases that were classified as DNA diploid (2 tumors) and DNA tetraploid (1 tumor). Conversely, flow cytometry detected aneuploidy (hypotetraploidy) in 1 tumor when the fluorescent in situ hybridization results were consistent with tetraploidy. Overall, fluorescent in situ hybridization was more sensitive in aneuploidy detection (6 of 7 cases) than flow cytometry (4 of 7). Of 19 tetraploid cases 5 had discordant fluorescent in situ hybridization and flow cytometry results. However, all 5 cases contained low levels of tetraploidy and the discrepant results were most likely due to the limits of precision of 1 or both methods. In conclusion, we demonstrated that fluorescent in situ hybridization ploidy analysis can be rapidly performed on fresh touch preparations of prostate tissue. This preliminary study demonstrates that the ploidy result determined by fluorescent in situ hybridization correlates well with that obtained by flow cytometry. More complete fluorescent in situ hybridization studies of prostate carcinoma will require additional probes for other chromosomes.

AB - Fluorescent in situ hybridization using 2 chromosome specific centromere probes was evaluated as a method of ploidy analysis in touch preparations from 50 radical prostatectomy specimens. Tumors were classified as aneuploid by fluorescent in situ hybridization when nuclei had an abnormal copy number (aneusomic) for either chromosome centromere 8 or 12. Tetraploid tumors were defined as those with 4 copies (tetrasomic) of chromosome centromeres 8 and 12. The fluorescent in situ hybridization ploidy patterns were compared to the deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) ploidy patterns subsequently obtained by flow cytometry on the same tissue following paraffin embedding. Concordant fluorescent in situ hybridization and flow cytometry ploidy classification was obtained in 82% of the cases (p ≤0.0001). Of 7 aneuploid tumors 3 were identified by both methods. Trisomy 8 was detected by fluorescent in situ hybridization in 3 cases that were classified as DNA diploid (2 tumors) and DNA tetraploid (1 tumor). Conversely, flow cytometry detected aneuploidy (hypotetraploidy) in 1 tumor when the fluorescent in situ hybridization results were consistent with tetraploidy. Overall, fluorescent in situ hybridization was more sensitive in aneuploidy detection (6 of 7 cases) than flow cytometry (4 of 7). Of 19 tetraploid cases 5 had discordant fluorescent in situ hybridization and flow cytometry results. However, all 5 cases contained low levels of tetraploidy and the discrepant results were most likely due to the limits of precision of 1 or both methods. In conclusion, we demonstrated that fluorescent in situ hybridization ploidy analysis can be rapidly performed on fresh touch preparations of prostate tissue. This preliminary study demonstrates that the ploidy result determined by fluorescent in situ hybridization correlates well with that obtained by flow cytometry. More complete fluorescent in situ hybridization studies of prostate carcinoma will require additional probes for other chromosomes.

KW - adenocarcinoma

KW - DNA

KW - ploidies

KW - prostatic neoplasms

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0027158875&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0027158875&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 8510232

AN - SCOPUS:0027158875

VL - 150

SP - 120

EP - 125

JO - Journal of Urology

JF - Journal of Urology

SN - 0022-5347

IS - 1

ER -