Search

Context: Cytogenetic heteromorphisms (normal variants) pose diagnostic dilemmas. Common Giemsa-band heteromorphisms are not described in the literature, although Giemsa-banding is the method most frequently used in cytogenetic laboratories., Objective: To summarize the responses from more than 200 cytogeneticists concerning the definition and reporting of cytogenetic heteromorphisms, to offer these responses as a reference for use in clinical interpretations, and to provide guidance for interpretation of newly defined molecular cytogenetic heteromorphisms., Design: The Cytogenetics Resource Committee of the College of American Pathologists and the American College of Medical Genetics administered a proficiency testing survey in 1997 to 226 participant cytogenetic laboratories. Supplemental questions asked whether participants considered particular Giemsa-banded chromosomal features to be heteromorphisms and if these would be described in a cytogenetic clinical report., Results: Responses were obtained from 99% of participants; 61% stated they would include selected heteromorphism data in a clinical report. More than 90% considered prominent short arms, large or double satellites, or increased stalk length on acrocentric chromosomes to be heteromorphisms; 24% to 36% stated that they would include these in a clinical report. Heterochromatic regions on chromosomes 1, 9, 16, and Y were considered heteromorphisms by 97% of participants, and 24% indicated they would report these findings. Pericentric inversions of chromosomes 1, 2, 3, 5, 9, 10, 16, and Y were considered heteromorphisms with more than 75% of respondents indicating they would report these findings., Conclusions: Responses were not unanimous, but a clear consensus is presented describing which Giemsa-band regions were considered heteromorphisms and which would be reported.

Context: Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) is a common method used to determine HER-2 status in breast cancer. Limited information is available concerning reproducibility of FISH in determining HER-2 gene amplification., Objective: To present proficiency testing results of FISH for HER-2 conducted by the Cytogenetics Resource Committee of the College of American Pathologists/American College of Medical Genetics., Design: During the past 5 years, unstained sections from 9 invasive breast carcinomas were used for HER-2 FISH proficiency testing, allowing for comparison of FISH results among a large number of laboratories. Additional data were collected using an educational (ungraded) challenge and supplemental questions in the surveys., Results: The number of laboratories participating in HER-2 FISH proficiency testing has increased steadily during the past 5 years (from 35 in 2000 to 139 in 2004). Reproducibility of test results among laboratories was excellent for breast tumors with low copy number (no HER-2 amplification) and for breast tumors with high copy number (HER-2 amplification). However, there was considerable variation in interpretation of results for a tumor with low-level HER-2 amplification that was tested on 2 separate occasions. Responses to supplemental questions indicated that there was a need for consensus on the use of a separate equivocal/borderline interpretative category and the need for standardization of cutoff values used to define interpretative categories., Conclusions: The College of American Pathologists proficiency survey programs provide useful information concerning the reproducibility of clinical testing for HER-2 by FISH and reflect clinical interpretation of HER-2 FISH analyses from laboratories across the country.

The nonrandom recurrent nature of chromosome abnormalities in myeloma suggests a role for them in disease pathogenesis. We performed a careful cytogenetic analysis of patients with abnormal karyotypes (n = 254), to discern patterns of association, search for novel abnormalities and elucidate clinical implications. Patients with karyotypic abnormalities suggestive of myelodysplasia/acute leukemia were excluded. In this study we compared survival by abnormality only between patients with abnormal karyotypes. Patients with abnormalities were more likely to have features of aggressive disease as compared to all other patients without abnormalities entered into the myeloma database (lower hemoglobin, higher beta(2)-microglobulin, labeling-index and plasmocytosis; all P < 0.0001). Several groups of patients could be readily identified; hypodiploid (22%), pseudodiploid (36%), hyperdiploid (31%) and near-tetraploid (11%). Clustering associations were seen among several trisomies and monosomy of chromosome 13 and 14. Several monosomies (-2, -3, -13, -14 and -19), 1p translocations/ deletions, and hypodiploidy were associated with a significantly shorter survival. Trisomy of chromosome 13 was rare ( <2%). Even among patients with abnormal karyotypes, specific chromosome abnormalities can impart biologic variability in myeloma, including several monosomies, hypodiploidy and abnormalities of 1p.

Fluorescence in situ hybridization using chromosome-specific DNA probes is rapidly becoming part of clinical laboratory practice for certain congenital and neoplastic disorders. Current legislation requires proficiency testing for clinical laboratory studies. To evaluate the efficacy of fluorescence in situ hybridization proficiency testing, we invited 19 representative institutions to participate in three pilot studies. One study used probes for the X and Y chromosomes to evaluate metaphase spreads and interphase nuclei. Another study used probes for bcr and abl to detect bcr/abl fusion in interphase nuclei in chronic myelogenous leukemia. The third study used a D22S75 probe to detect microdeletions in metaphase spreads from a patient with velocardiofacial syndrome. The results of these studies demonstrate that proficiency testing with fluorescence in situ hybridization is attainable using either metaphase or interphase preparations, and that either microscope slides or fixed cell pellets are suitable.