2022Journal of HematologyOpen access

Conventional Karyotyping and Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization for Detection of Chromosomal Abnormalities in Multiple Myeloma

Matthew Crabtree, Jennifer Cai, Xin Qing

Open full text 8 citations

Abstract

Background: hybridization (FISH) analysis and/or G-banded karyotyping. The two methods produce unique and overlapping information, and the clinical utility of using both is investigated here. Methods: Seventy patients diagnosed with MM at a hospital in Southern California were retrospectively reviewed for the FISH and G-banded karyotyping results obtained from bone marrow specimens. Results: Karyotype was normal in 71% (50/70), abnormal in 27% (19/70), and inadequate in 1% (1/70). Among patients with abnormal karyotype, FISH provided additional information about genetic aberrations in 95% of cases (18/19). Among cases with abnormal FISH, karyotype provided additional information about genetic aberrations in 27% of cases (18/66). When numerical abnormalities were present (detected by FISH and/or karyotype), FISH detected them in 95% (54/57), of which karyotype missed 70% (38/54) of the time. Karyotyping detected numerical abnormalities in 33% (19/57), which FISH missed 16% (3/19) of the time. Conclusions: Karyotyping and FISH analysis in MM each provide unique information. For most patients, performing both tests together will provide more information than either test alone.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Background: hybridization (FISH) analysis and/or G-banded karyotyping. The two methods produce unique and overlapping information, and the clinical utility of using both is investigated here. Methods: Seventy patients diagnosed with MM at a hospital in Southern California were retrospectively reviewed for the FISH and G-banded karyotyping results obtained from bone marrow specimens. Results: Karyotype was normal in 71% (50/70), abnormal in 27% (19/70), and inadequate in 1% (1/70). Among patients with abnormal karyotype, FISH provided additional information about genetic aberrations in 95% of cases (18/19). Among cases with abnormal FISH, karyotype provided additional information about genetic aberrations in 27% of cases (18/66). When numerical abnormalities were present (detected by FISH and/or karyotype), FISH detected them in 95% (54/57), of which karyotype missed 70% (38/54) of the time. Karyotyping detected numerical abnormalities in 33% (19/57), which FISH missed 16% (3/19) of the time. Conclusions: Karyotyping and FISH analysis in MM each provide unique information. For most patients, performing both tests together will provide more information than either test alone.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 8 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Background: hybridization (FISH) analysis and/or G-banded karyotyping. The two methods produce unique and overlapping information, and the clinical utility of using both is investigated here. Methods: Seventy patients diagnosed with MM at a hospital in Southern California were retrospectively reviewed for the FISH and G-banded karyotyping results obtained from bone marrow specimens. Results: Karyotype was normal in 71% (50/70), abnormal in 27% (19/70), and inadequate in 1% (1/70). Among patients with abnormal karyotype, FISH provided additional information about genetic aberrations in 95% of cases (18/19). Among cases with abnormal FISH, karyotype provided additional information about genetic aberrations in 27% of cases (18/66). When numerical abnormalities were present (detected by FISH and/or karyotype), FISH detected them in 95% (54/57), of which karyotype missed 70% (38/54) of the time. Karyotyping detected numerical abnormalities in 33% (19/57), which FISH missed 16% (3/19) of the time. Conclusions: Karyotyping and FISH analysis in MM each provide unique information. For most patients, performing both tests together will provide more information than either test alone.

Key concepts: Karyotype, Fluorescence in situ hybridization, Fish <Actinopterygii>, Biology, Multiple myeloma, Pathology, Chromosome, Cytogenetics

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Conventional Karyotyping and Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization for Detection of Chromosomal Abnormalities in Multiple Myeloma — Research Paper | ScholarLens