The comparative utility of fluorescence in situ hybridization and reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction in the diagnosis of alveolar rhabdomyosarcoma.

Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) for FOXO1 gene rearrangement and reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for PAX3/7-FOXO1 fusion transcripts have become routine ancillary tools for the diagnosis of alveolar rhabdomyosarcomas (ARMS). Here we summarize our experience of these adjunct diagnostic modalities at a tertiary center, presenting the largest comparative series of FISH and PCR for suspected or possible ARMS to date. All suspected or possible ARMS tested by FISH or PCR for FOXO1 rearrangement or PAX3/7-FOXO1 fusion transcripts over a 7-year period were included. FISH and PCR results were correlated with clinical and histologic findings. One hundred samples from 95 patients had FISH and/or PCR performed. FISH had higher rates of technical success (96.8 %) compared with PCR (88 %). Where both tests were utilized successfully, there was high concordance rate between them (94.9 %). In 24 histologic ARMS tested for FISH or PCR, 83.3 % were translocation-positive (all for PAX3-FOXO1 by PCR) and included 3 histologic solid variants. In 76 cases where ARMS was excluded, there were 3 potential false-positive cases with FISH but none with PCR. PCR had similar sensitivity (85.7 %) and better specificity (100 %) in aiding the diagnosis of ARMS, compared with FISH (85 and 95.8 %, respectively). All solid variant ARMS harbored FOXO1 gene rearrangements and PAX3-FOXO1 ARMS were detected to the exclusion of PAX7-FOXO1. In comparative analysis, both FISH and PCR are useful in aiding the diagnosis of ARMS and excluding its sarcomatous mimics. FISH is more reliable technically but has less specificity than PCR. In cases where ARMS is in the differential diagnosis, it is optimal to perform both PCR and FISH: both have similar sensitivities for detecting ARMS, but FISH may confirm or exclude cases that are technically unsuccessful with PCR, while PCR can detect specific fusion transcripts that may be useful prognostically.

Utility of sarcoma-specific fusion gene analysis in paraffin-embedded material for routine diagnosis at a specialist centre.

AIMS: Diagnosis of soft tissue sarcomas can be difficult. It can be aided by detection of specific genetic aberrations in many cases. This study assessed the utility of a molecular genetics/cytogenetics service as part of the routine diagnostic service at the Royal Marsden Hospital. METHODS: A retrospective audit was performed over a 15-month period to evaluate the diagnostic usefulness for soft tissue sarcomas with translocations of fluorescence in situ hybridisation (FISH) and reverse-transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) in paraffin-embedded (PE) material. Results were compared with histology, and evaluated. RESULTS: Molecular investigations were performed on PE material in 158 samples (total 194 RT-PCR and 174 FISH tests), of which 85 were referral cases. Synovial sarcoma, Ewing sarcoma and low-grade fibromyxoid sarcoma were the most commonly tested tumours. Myxoid liposarcoma showed the best histological and molecular concordance, and alveolar rhabdomyosarcoma showed the best agreement between methods. FISH had a higher sensitivity for detecting tumours (73%, compared with 59% for RT-PCR) with a better success rate than RT-PCR, although the latter was specific in identifying the partner gene for each fusion. In particular, referral blocks in which methods of tissue fixation and processing were not certain resulted in higher RT-PCR failure rates. CONCLUSIONS: FISH and RT-PCR on PE tissue are practical and effective ancillary tools in the diagnosis of soft tissue sarcomas. They are useful in confirming doubtful histological diagnoses and excluding malignant diagnoses. PCR is less sensitive than FISH, and the use of both techniques is optimal for maximising the detection rate of translocation-positive sarcomas.