The browser you are using is not supported by this website. All versions of Internet Explorer are no longer supported, either by us or Microsoft (read more here: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/windows/end-of-ie-support).

Please use a modern browser to fully experience our website, such as the newest versions of Edge, Chrome, Firefox or Safari etc.

Report from the European Myeloma Network on interphase FISH in multiple myeloma and related disorders

På svenska

Author

  • Fiona M. Ross
  • Herve Avet-Loiseau
  • Genevieve Ameye
  • Norma C. Gutierrez
  • Peter Liebisch
  • Sheila O'Connor
  • Klara Dalva
  • Sonia Fabris
  • Adele M. Testi
  • Marie Jarosova
  • Clare Hodkinson
  • Anna Collin
  • Gitte Kerndrup
  • Petr Kuglik
  • Dariusz Ladon
  • Paolo Bernasconi
  • Brigitte Maes
  • Zuzana Zemanova
  • Kyra Michalova
  • Lucienne Michau
  • Kai Neben
  • N. Emil U. Hermansen
  • Katrina Rack
  • Alberto Rocci
  • Rebecca Protheroe
  • Laura Chiecchio
  • Helene A. Poirel
  • Pieter Sonneveld
  • Mette Nyegaard
  • Hans E. Johnsen
Show all

Summary, in English

The European Myeloma Network has organized two workshops on fluorescence in situ hybridization in multiple myeloma. The first aimed to identify specific indications and consensus technical approaches of current practice. A second workshop followed a quality control exercise in which 21 laboratories analyzed diagnostic cases of purified plasma cells for recurrent abnormalities. The summary report was discussed at the EHA Myeloma Scientific Working Group Meeting 2010. During the quality control exercise, there was acceptable agreement on more than 1,000 tests. The conclusions from the exercise were that the primary clinical applications for FISH analysis were for newly diagnosed cases of MM or frank relapse cases. A range of technical recommendations included: 1) material should be part of the first draw of the aspirate; 2) samples should be sent at suitable times to allow for the lengthy processing procedure; 3) most importantly, PCs must be purified or specifically identified; 4) positive cut-off levels should be relatively conservative: 10% for fusion or break-apart probes, 20% for numerical abnormalities; 5) informative probes should be combined to best effect; 6) in specialist laboratories, a single experienced analyst is considered adequate; 7) at least 100 PC should be scored; 8) essential abnormalities to test for are t(4;14), t(14;16) and 17p13 deletions; 9) suitable commercial probes should be available for clinically relevant abnormalities; 10) the clinical report should be expressed clearly and must state the percentage of PC involved and the method used for identification; 11) a retrospective European based FISH data bank linked to clinical data should be generated; and 12) prospective analysis should be centralized for upcoming trials based on the recommendations made. The European Myeloma Network aims to build on these recommendations to establish standards for a common European data base to define subgroups with prognostic significance.

Publishing year

2012

Language

English

Pages

1272-1277

Publication/Series

Haematologica

Volume

97

Issue

8

Document type

Journal article

Publisher

Ferrata Storti Foundation

Topic

  • Hematology

Keywords

  • myeloma
  • cytogenetic
  • interphase FISH
  • recommendation

Status

Published

ISBN/ISSN/Other

  • ISSN: 1592-8721