Fluorescence in Situ Hybridization (FISH) Copy Number Abnormalities at 6p (RREB1), 6q (MYB), and 11q (CCND1) Reliably Distinguish Metastatic Versus Benign Melanocytic Lesions

Context.— Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and brightfield in situ hybridization (ISH) are 2 clinically approved laboratory methods for detecting ERBB2 (HER2) amplification in breast cancer. Objective.— To compare the performance of FISH and brightfield ISH on proficiency testing administered by the College of American Pathologists Laboratory Accreditation Program. Design.— Retrospective review was performed on 70 tissue core samples in 7 separate proficiency testing surveys conducted between 2009 and 2013. Results.— The samples included 13 consensus-amplified tissue cores, 53 consensus-nonamplified cores, and 4 cores that did not reach consensus for FISH and/or brightfield ISH. There were 2552 individual responses for FISH and 1871 individual responses for brightfield ISH. Consensus response rates were comparable for FISH (2474 of 2524; 98.0%) and brightfield ISH (2135 of 2189; 97.5%). The FISH analysis yielded an average HER2 copy number per cell that was significantly higher (by 2.86; P = .02) compared with brightfield ISH for amplified cores. For nonamplified cores, FISH yielded slightly, but not significantly, higher (by 0.17; P = .10) HER2 copy numbers per cell. There was no significant difference in the average HER2 to control ratio for either consensus-amplified or consensus-nonamplified cores. Participants reported “unable to analyze” more frequently for brightfield ISH (244 of 2453; 9.9%) than they did for FISH (160 of 2684; 6.0%). Conclusions.— Our study indicates a high concordance rate in proficiency testing surveys, with some significant differences noted in the technical performance of these assays. In borderline cases, updated American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists cutoff thresholds that place greater emphasis on HER2 copy number per cell could accentuate those differences between FISH and brightfield ISH.

Download Full-text

Pilot study on the correlation between dermoscopic patterns and fluorescence in situ hybridization findings using whole-slide digital imaging for acral volar melanocytic lesions

The Journal of Dermatology ◽

10.1111/1346-8138.14324 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 45 (7) ◽

pp. 830-836 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Dai Ogata ◽

Eiichi Arai ◽

Yoshiya Goto ◽

Tetsuya Tsuchida

Keyword(s):

In Situ Hybridization ◽

Pilot Study ◽

Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization ◽

Digital Imaging ◽

Melanocytic Lesions

Download Full-text

Correlation Between Histologic Assessment and Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization Using MelanoSITE in Evaluation of Histologically Ambiguous Melanocytic Lesions

Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine ◽

10.5858/arpa.2011-0673-oa ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 136 (12) ◽

pp. 1571-1579 ◽

Cited By ~ 21

Author(s):

Artur Zembowicz ◽

Sung-Eun Yang ◽

Antonios Kafanas ◽

Stephen R. Lyle

Keyword(s):

In Situ Hybridization ◽

Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization ◽

Melanocytic Lesions

Download Full-text

Update on Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization in Melanoma: State of the Art

Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine ◽

10.5858/2011-0048-rair.1 ◽

2011 ◽

Vol 135 (7) ◽

pp. 830-837 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Pedram Gerami ◽

Artur Zembowicz

Keyword(s):

In Situ Hybridization ◽

Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization ◽

Personal Experience ◽

State Of The Art ◽

Review Of The Literature ◽

Multicolor Fish ◽

Melanocytic Lesions ◽

Genetic Abnormalities

Abstract Context.—Recent advances in understanding the molecular basis of melanoma have resulted in development of fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) protocols designed to detect genetic abnormalities discriminating melanoma from nevi. The most extensively studied is a 4-probe multicolor FISH probe panel targeting chromosomes 6 and 11. Validation studies showed promising sensitivity and specificity for distinguishing benign nevi and malignant melanoma by FISH. Recent studies show that a melanoma FISH assay has great potential for becoming an important diagnostic adjunct in classification of melanocytic lesions and in diagnosis of melanoma. Objective.—To present a comprehensive review of the science and practical aspects of FISH in melanoma for pathologists considering the use of melanoma FISH in their practice. Data Sources.—Review of the literature and personal experience of the authors. Conclusions.—Judicious use of a 4-probe multicolor melanoma FISH procedure can enhance accuracy for diagnosis of melanoma and improve classification of melanocytic proliferations.

Download Full-text