BMC Gastroenterology (Nov 2020)

An assessment of chromosomal alterations detected by fluorescence in situ hybridisation in pancreatobiliary tract malignancy

  • Xiaohong Pu,
  • Hongwei Zheng,
  • Xin Yang,
  • Qing Ye,
  • Zhiwen Fan,
  • Jun Yang,
  • Xiangshan Fan,
  • Xiaoping Zhou,
  • Yudong Qiu,
  • Qin Huang,
  • Hongyan Wu,
  • Jun Chen

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12876-020-01439-0
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 20, no. 1
pp. 1 – 9

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Background Using fluorescence in situ hybridisation (FISH) to detect any gain of chromosomes 3, 7, or 17 and loss of the 9p21 locus has been proven to be sensitive in the diagnosis of pancreatobiliary tumors. However, both genetic and environmental factors contribute to the pathogenesis of pancreatobiliary tumors. Therefore, it is unknown whether this method is suitable for Chinese patients with pancreatobiliary tumors. This study aims to compare the sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and accuracy of cytology, ERCP/MRCP and FISH based on Chinese patients with pancreatobiliary tumors,and to analyze differences between brushing-based and formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE)-based FISH. Methods A total of 66 brush cytology specimens obtained during ERCP were detected by FISH and cytology test respectively to compare the sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and accuracy. Besides, FFPE-based FISH was performed on 46 corresponding paraffin sections of pancreatobiliary tumors obtained by surgical resection. Results Our findings demonstrate that FISH greatly improves diagnostic sensitivity and negative predictive value compared to ERCP/MRCP and cytology without much reduction in specificity and positive predictive value. However, our results also indicate that FFPE-based FISH could not effectively identify the false-negative of brushing-based FISH. Conclusions We believe that FISH can effectively distinguish true positive and false positive results of cytological or radiological suspicions of malignancy. However, FFPE-based FISH still does not precisely recognize the false-negative of brushing-based FISH. Both cytology-based and PPFE-based FISH had limitation in some specimens.

Keywords