4.6 Article

Break-apart interphase fluorescence in situ hybridization assay in papillary thyroid carcinoma: on the road to optimizing the cut-off level for RET/PTC rearrangements

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENDOCRINOLOGY
卷 172, 期 5, 页码 571-582

出版社

BIOSCIENTIFICA LTD
DOI: 10.1530/EJE-14-0930

关键词

-

资金

  1. ARC-NET Research Centre at Verona University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Chromosomal rearrangements of the RET proto-oncogene is one of the most common molecular events in papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC). However, their pathogenic role and clinical significance are still debated. This study aimed to investigate the prevalence of RET/PTC rearrangement in a cohort of BRAF WT PTCs by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and to search a reliable cut-off level in order to distinguish clonal or non-clonal RET changes. Design: Forty BRAF WT PTCs were analyzed by FISH for RET rearrangements. As controls, six BRAFV600E mutated PTCs, 13 follicular adenomas (FA), and ten normal thyroid parenchyma were also analyzed. Methods: We performed FISH analysis on formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue using a commercially available RET break-apart probe. A cut-off level equivalent to 10.2% of aberrant cells was accepted as significant. To validate FISH results, we analyzed the study cohort by qRT-PCR. Results: Split RETsignals above the cut-off level were observed in 25% (10/40) of PTCs, harboring a percentage of positive cells ranging from 12 to 50%, and in one spontaneous FA (1/13, 7.7%). Overall, the data obtained by FISH matched well with qRT-PCR results. Challenging findings were observed in five cases showing a frequency of rearrangement very close to the cut-off. Conclusions: FISH approach represents a powerful tool to estimate the ratio between broken and non-broken RET tumor cells. Establishing a precise FISH cut-off may be useful in the interpretation of the presence of RET rearrangement, primarily when this strategy is used for cytological evaluation or for targeted therapy.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据