Superior detection rate of plasma cell FISH using FACS-FISH

Marie France Gagnon; Sally M. Midthun; James A. Fangel; Cynthia M. Schuh; Ivy M. Luoma; Kathryn E. Pearce; Reid G. Meyer; Sikander Ailawadhi; Mariano J. Arribas; Esteban Braggio; Rafael Fonseca; S. Vincent Rajkumar; Cinthya Zepeda-Mendoza; Xinjie Xu; Patricia T. Greipp; Michael M. Timm; Gregory E. Otteson; Min Shi; Dragan Jevremovic; Horatiu Olteanu; Jess F. Peterson; Rhett P. Ketterling; Shaji Kumar; Linda B. Baughn

doi:10.1093/ajcp/aqad108

Superior detection rate of plasma cell FISH using FACS-FISH

Marie France Gagnon, Sally M. Midthun, James A. Fangel, Cynthia M. Schuh, Ivy M. Luoma, Kathryn E. Pearce, Reid G. Meyer, Sikander Ailawadhi, Mariano J. Arribas, Esteban Braggio, Rafael Fonseca, S. Vincent Rajkumar, Cinthya Zepeda-Mendoza, Xinjie Xu, Patricia T. Greipp, Michael M. Timm, Gregory E. Otteson, Min Shi, Dragan Jevremovic, Horatiu OlteanuJess F. Peterson, Rhett P. Ketterling, Shaji Kumar, Linda B. Baughn

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Abstract

Objectives: Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) for plasma cell neoplasms (PCNs) requires plasma cell (PC) identification or purification strategies to optimize results. We compared the efficacy of cytoplasmic immunoglobulin FISH (cIg-FISH) and fluorescence-activated cell sorting FISH (FACS-FISH) in a clinical laboratory setting. Methods: The FISH analysis results of 14,855 samples from individuals with a suspected PCN subjected to cytogenetic evaluation between 2019 and 2022 with cIg-FISH (n = 6917) or FACS-FISH (n = 7938) testing were analyzed. Results: Fluorescence-activated cell sorting–FISH increased the detection rate of abnormalities in comparison with cIg-FISH, with abnormal results documented in 54% vs 50% of cases, respectively (P < .001). It improved the detection of IGH::CCND1 (P < .001), IGH::MAF (P < .001), IGH::MAFB (P < .001), other IGH rearrangements (P < .001), and gains/amplifications of 1q (P < .001), whereas the detection rates of IGH::FGFR3 fusions (P = .3), loss of 17p (P = .3), and other abnormalities, including hyperdiploidy (P = .5), were similar. Insufficient PC yield for FISH analysis was decreased between cIg-FISH and FACS-FISH (22% and 3% respectively, P < .001). Flow cytometry allowed establishment of ploidy status in 91% of cases. In addition, FACS-FISH decreased analysis times, workload efforts, and operating costs. Conclusions: Fluorescence-activated cell sorting–FISH is an efficient PC purification strategy that affords significant improvement in diagnostic yield and decreases workflow requirements in comparison with cIg-FISH.

Original language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	60-70
Number of pages	11
Journal	American journal of clinical pathology
Volume	161
Issue number	1
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcp/aqad108
State	Published - Jan 1 2024

Keywords

FACS-FISH
FISH testing
cIg-FISH
cytoplasmic immunoglobulin FISH
fluorescence-activated cell sorting FISH
multiple myeloma
plasma cell neoplasm

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Pathology and Forensic Medicine

Access to Document

10.1093/ajcp/aqad108

Cite this

Gagnon, M. F., Midthun, S. M., Fangel, J. A., Schuh, C. M., Luoma, I. M., Pearce, K. E., Meyer, R. G., Ailawadhi, S., Arribas, M. J., Braggio, E., Fonseca, R., Rajkumar, S. V., Zepeda-Mendoza, C., Xu, X., Greipp, P. T., Timm, M. M., Otteson, G. E., Shi, M., Jevremovic, D., ... Baughn, L. B. (2024). Superior detection rate of plasma cell FISH using FACS-FISH. American journal of clinical pathology, 161(1), 60-70. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcp/aqad108

Gagnon, MF, Midthun, SM, Fangel, JA, Schuh, CM, Luoma, IM, Pearce, KE, Meyer, RG, Ailawadhi, S, Arribas, MJ, Braggio, E , Fonseca, R , Rajkumar, SV, Zepeda-Mendoza, C, Xu, X, Greipp, PT, Timm, MM, Otteson, GE, Shi, M, Jevremovic, D, Olteanu, H, Peterson, JF, Ketterling, RP, Kumar, S & Baughn, LB 2024, 'Superior detection rate of plasma cell FISH using FACS-FISH', American journal of clinical pathology, vol. 161, no. 1, pp. 60-70. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcp/aqad108

@article{b18e3dd3b8124f77966eb63631c5f246,

title = "Superior detection rate of plasma cell FISH using FACS-FISH",

abstract = "Objectives: Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) for plasma cell neoplasms (PCNs) requires plasma cell (PC) identification or purification strategies to optimize results. We compared the efficacy of cytoplasmic immunoglobulin FISH (cIg-FISH) and fluorescence-activated cell sorting FISH (FACS-FISH) in a clinical laboratory setting. Methods: The FISH analysis results of 14,855 samples from individuals with a suspected PCN subjected to cytogenetic evaluation between 2019 and 2022 with cIg-FISH (n = 6917) or FACS-FISH (n = 7938) testing were analyzed. Results: Fluorescence-activated cell sorting–FISH increased the detection rate of abnormalities in comparison with cIg-FISH, with abnormal results documented in 54% vs 50% of cases, respectively (P < .001). It improved the detection of IGH::CCND1 (P < .001), IGH::MAF (P < .001), IGH::MAFB (P < .001), other IGH rearrangements (P < .001), and gains/amplifications of 1q (P < .001), whereas the detection rates of IGH::FGFR3 fusions (P = .3), loss of 17p (P = .3), and other abnormalities, including hyperdiploidy (P = .5), were similar. Insufficient PC yield for FISH analysis was decreased between cIg-FISH and FACS-FISH (22% and 3% respectively, P < .001). Flow cytometry allowed establishment of ploidy status in 91% of cases. In addition, FACS-FISH decreased analysis times, workload efforts, and operating costs. Conclusions: Fluorescence-activated cell sorting–FISH is an efficient PC purification strategy that affords significant improvement in diagnostic yield and decreases workflow requirements in comparison with cIg-FISH.",

keywords = "FACS-FISH, FISH testing, cIg-FISH, cytoplasmic immunoglobulin FISH, fluorescence-activated cell sorting FISH, multiple myeloma, plasma cell neoplasm",

author = "Gagnon, {Marie France} and Midthun, {Sally M.} and Fangel, {James A.} and Schuh, {Cynthia M.} and Luoma, {Ivy M.} and Pearce, {Kathryn E.} and Meyer, {Reid G.} and Sikander Ailawadhi and Arribas, {Mariano J.} and Esteban Braggio and Rafael Fonseca and Rajkumar, {S. Vincent} and Cinthya Zepeda-Mendoza and Xinjie Xu and Greipp, {Patricia T.} and Timm, {Michael M.} and Otteson, {Gregory E.} and Min Shi and Dragan Jevremovic and Horatiu Olteanu and Peterson, {Jess F.} and Ketterling, {Rhett P.} and Shaji Kumar and Baughn, {Linda B.}",

year = "2024",

month = jan,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1093/ajcp/aqad108",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "161",

pages = "60--70",

journal = "American journal of clinical pathology",

issn = "0002-9173",

publisher = "American Society of Clinical Pathologists",

number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Superior detection rate of plasma cell FISH using FACS-FISH

AU - Gagnon, Marie France

AU - Midthun, Sally M.

AU - Fangel, James A.

AU - Schuh, Cynthia M.

AU - Luoma, Ivy M.

AU - Pearce, Kathryn E.

AU - Meyer, Reid G.

AU - Ailawadhi, Sikander

AU - Arribas, Mariano J.

AU - Braggio, Esteban

AU - Fonseca, Rafael

AU - Rajkumar, S. Vincent

AU - Zepeda-Mendoza, Cinthya

AU - Xu, Xinjie

AU - Greipp, Patricia T.

AU - Timm, Michael M.

AU - Otteson, Gregory E.

AU - Shi, Min

AU - Jevremovic, Dragan

AU - Olteanu, Horatiu

AU - Peterson, Jess F.

AU - Ketterling, Rhett P.

AU - Kumar, Shaji

AU - Baughn, Linda B.

PY - 2024/1/1

Y1 - 2024/1/1

N2 - Objectives: Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) for plasma cell neoplasms (PCNs) requires plasma cell (PC) identification or purification strategies to optimize results. We compared the efficacy of cytoplasmic immunoglobulin FISH (cIg-FISH) and fluorescence-activated cell sorting FISH (FACS-FISH) in a clinical laboratory setting. Methods: The FISH analysis results of 14,855 samples from individuals with a suspected PCN subjected to cytogenetic evaluation between 2019 and 2022 with cIg-FISH (n = 6917) or FACS-FISH (n = 7938) testing were analyzed. Results: Fluorescence-activated cell sorting–FISH increased the detection rate of abnormalities in comparison with cIg-FISH, with abnormal results documented in 54% vs 50% of cases, respectively (P < .001). It improved the detection of IGH::CCND1 (P < .001), IGH::MAF (P < .001), IGH::MAFB (P < .001), other IGH rearrangements (P < .001), and gains/amplifications of 1q (P < .001), whereas the detection rates of IGH::FGFR3 fusions (P = .3), loss of 17p (P = .3), and other abnormalities, including hyperdiploidy (P = .5), were similar. Insufficient PC yield for FISH analysis was decreased between cIg-FISH and FACS-FISH (22% and 3% respectively, P < .001). Flow cytometry allowed establishment of ploidy status in 91% of cases. In addition, FACS-FISH decreased analysis times, workload efforts, and operating costs. Conclusions: Fluorescence-activated cell sorting–FISH is an efficient PC purification strategy that affords significant improvement in diagnostic yield and decreases workflow requirements in comparison with cIg-FISH.

AB - Objectives: Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) for plasma cell neoplasms (PCNs) requires plasma cell (PC) identification or purification strategies to optimize results. We compared the efficacy of cytoplasmic immunoglobulin FISH (cIg-FISH) and fluorescence-activated cell sorting FISH (FACS-FISH) in a clinical laboratory setting. Methods: The FISH analysis results of 14,855 samples from individuals with a suspected PCN subjected to cytogenetic evaluation between 2019 and 2022 with cIg-FISH (n = 6917) or FACS-FISH (n = 7938) testing were analyzed. Results: Fluorescence-activated cell sorting–FISH increased the detection rate of abnormalities in comparison with cIg-FISH, with abnormal results documented in 54% vs 50% of cases, respectively (P < .001). It improved the detection of IGH::CCND1 (P < .001), IGH::MAF (P < .001), IGH::MAFB (P < .001), other IGH rearrangements (P < .001), and gains/amplifications of 1q (P < .001), whereas the detection rates of IGH::FGFR3 fusions (P = .3), loss of 17p (P = .3), and other abnormalities, including hyperdiploidy (P = .5), were similar. Insufficient PC yield for FISH analysis was decreased between cIg-FISH and FACS-FISH (22% and 3% respectively, P < .001). Flow cytometry allowed establishment of ploidy status in 91% of cases. In addition, FACS-FISH decreased analysis times, workload efforts, and operating costs. Conclusions: Fluorescence-activated cell sorting–FISH is an efficient PC purification strategy that affords significant improvement in diagnostic yield and decreases workflow requirements in comparison with cIg-FISH.

KW - FACS-FISH

KW - FISH testing

KW - cIg-FISH

KW - cytoplasmic immunoglobulin FISH

KW - fluorescence-activated cell sorting FISH

KW - multiple myeloma

KW - plasma cell neoplasm

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85181587483&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85181587483&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/ajcp/aqad108

DO - 10.1093/ajcp/aqad108

M3 - Article

C2 - 37658775

AN - SCOPUS:85181587483

SN - 0002-9173

VL - 161

SP - 60

EP - 70

JO - American journal of clinical pathology

JF - American journal of clinical pathology

IS - 1

ER -

Superior detection rate of plasma cell FISH using FACS-FISH

Abstract

Keywords

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this