Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The histological diagnosis of sarcoma can be difficult as it sometimes requires the combination of morphological and immunophenotypic analyses with molecular tests. A total of 2705 tissue samples of sarcoma consecutively collected from 2006 until 2020 that had undergone molecular analysis were assessed to evaluate their diagnostic utility compared with histological assessments. A total of 3051 molecular analyses were performed, including 1484 gene fusions tested by c/qRT-PCR, 992 gene rearrangements analysed by FISH, 433 analyses of the gene status of MDM2, 126 mutational analyses and 16 NGS analysis. Of the samples analysed, 68% were from formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue and 32% were from frozen tissue. C/qRT-PCR and FISH analyses were conclusive on formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue in 74% and 76% of samples, respectively, but the combination of the two methods gave us conclusive results in 96% and 89% of frozen and formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissues, respectively. We demonstrate the utility of c/qRT-PCR and FISH for sarcoma diagnosis and that each has advantages in specific contexts. We conclude that it is possible to accurately predict the sarcoma subtype using a panel of different subtype-specific FISH probes and c/qRT-PCR assays, thereby greatly facilitating the differential diagnosis of these tumours.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Benini et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: