These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Interpretation of submicroscopic deletions of the BCR or ABL gene should not depend on extra signal-FISH: problems in interpretation of submicroscopic deletion of the BCR or ABL gene with extra signal-FISH.
    Author: Kim YR, Cho HI, Yoon SS, Park S, Kim BK, Lee YK, Chun H, Kim HC, Lee DS.
    Journal: Genes Chromosomes Cancer; 2005 May; 43(1):37-44. PubMed ID: 15723338.
    Abstract:
    Several groups have demonstrated that a submicroscopic gene deletion in Ph+ chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) is associated with a poor prognosis and reduced response to treatment. To assess the variation between detection methods in the interpretation of a submicroscopic gene deletion, we performed an extra signal (ES)-FISH BCR/ABL and double-FISH (D-FISH) BCR/ABL on frozen bone marrow cells from 79 patients with CML (63 in the chronic phase, 6 in the accelerated phase, and 10 in blast crisis) and 30 patients with a BCR/ABL-negative myeloproliferative disorder as determined by RT-PCR. The normal cutoff values were 0.22% for ES-FISH and 0.25% for D-FISH. The cutoff values for false-positive signals from a juxtaposition of the BCR and ABL gene were 11% in ES-FISH and 13% in D-FISH. Of the 14 patients who showed an ABL gene deletion by ES-FISH, 5 had an ABL deletion only, 5 had both a BCR and an ABL deletion, but 4 proved to have a classic BCR/ABL rearrangement without a submicroscopic deletion, as determined by D-FISH. Discrepant results between ES- and D-FISH were observed in 12 of the 79 patients (15.8%), and the main causes of a discrepancy were a false-positive ABL deletion (4 of 12, 33%), a variant Philadelphia chromosome (3 of 12, 25%), an inversion of derivative chromosome 9 at the very breakpoint of the ABL gene (9q32) (1 of 12, 8.3%), a cryptic variant Ph chromosome (1 of 12, 8.3%), and a marker chromosome (1 of 12, 8.3%). Although there was no significant difference in the sensitivity for the detection of the fusion signal between ES- and D-FISH, ES-FISH showed a high percentage of cells with false-positive fusion signals (1 orange, 1 green, 1 yellow), which makes it difficult to interpret the submicroscopic ABL deletion. In conclusion, an interpretation of the submicroscopic deletions of the BCR or ABL gene should not depend on ES-FISH.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]