Comparison of Gene Expression Profiling and Chromosome 3 Analysis by Fluorescent in situ Hybridization and Multiplex Ligation Probe Amplification in Fine-Needle Aspiration Biopsy Specimens of Uveal MelanomaKlufas M.A.a · Richter E.a · Itty S.a · Moreno C.a · McCannel C.A.a, b · McCannel T.A.a, b
Departments of Ophthalmology at aStein Eye Institute and bDoheny Eye Institute, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
Keywords: Uveal melanomaChoroidal melanomaMolecular prognosticationFine-needle aspiration biopsyFluorescent in situ hybridizationGene expression profilingMultiplex ligation probe amplificationMonosomy 3
Do you have an account?
- Rent for 48h to view
- Buy Cloud Access for unlimited viewing via different devices
- Synchronizing in the ReadCube Cloud
- Printing and saving restrictions apply
Rental: USD 8.50
Cloud: USD 20.00
Article / Publication Details
Purpose: The aim of this paper was to assess the concordance between results of DecisionDx-UM specific gene expression profiling (GEP) and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) for chromosome 3 analysis, and between DecisionDx-UM GEP and multiplex ligation probe amplification (MLPA) in uveal melanoma undergoing intraoperative fine-needle aspiration biopsy (FNAB) for metastatic prognostication during brachytherapy. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed consecutive patients diagnosed with posterior uveal melanoma who underwent intraoperative FNAB prior to placement of an iodine-125 radioactive plaque between 2012 and 2014. Two cohorts of patients were identified: Cohort 1 - tumors in which both GEP and FISH results were obtained, and Cohort 2 - tumors in which both GEP and MLPA results were obtained. Results: Forty-four patients were identified for Cohort 1. FISH and GEP results were discordant in 7 tumors (15.9%). Forty-three patients were identified for Cohort 2. MLPA and GEP were discordant in 7 tumors (16.3%). Conclusions: Discordance between GEP and chromosome 3 status by FISH and MLPA occurred in our series at a rate of 15.9 and 16.3%, respectively. Caution must be advised when counseling a patient with a good-prognosis GEP “Class 1” result that the uveal tumor may actually harbor monosomy 3, which is associated with a poor prognosis for metastasis in nearly 20% of the patients.
© 2017 S. Karger AG, Basel
- Correa ZM: Assessing prognosis in uveal melanoma. Cancer Control 2016;23:93-98.
- Damato B: Progress in the management of patients with uveal melanoma. The 2012 Ashton Lecture. Eye (Lond) 2012;26:1157-1172.
- Field MG, Harbour JW: Recent developments in prognostic and predictive testing in uveal melanoma. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2014;25:234-239.
- Hamadeh F, Medina CA, Singh AD, Reynolds JP, Biscotti CV: Uveal melanoma: an analysis of cellular features and comparison to monosomy 3 status. Diagn Cytopathol 2016;44:377-383.
- McCannel TA: Fine-needle aspiration biopsy in the management of choroidal melanoma. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2013;24:262-266.
- Shields CL, Ganguly A, Bianciotto CG, Turaka K, Tavallali A, Shields JA: Prognosis of uveal melanoma in 500 cases using genetic testing of fine-needle aspiration biopsy specimens. Ophthalmology 2011;118:396-401.
- Singh AD: Prognostication of uveal melanoma: a work in progress. JAMA Ophthalmol 2016;134:740-741.
- Singh AD, Medina CA, Singh N, Aronow ME, Biscotti CV, Triozzi PL: Fine-needle aspiration biopsy of uveal melanoma: outcomes and complications. Br J Ophthalmol 2016;100:456-462.
- Prescher G, Bornfeld N, Hirche H, Horsthemke B, Jockel KH, Becher R: Prognostic implications of monosomy 3 in uveal melanoma. Lancet 1996;347:1222-1225.
- Tschentscher F, Husing J, Holter T, et al: Tumor classification based on gene expression profiling shows that uveal melanomas with and without monosomy 3 represent two distinct entities. Cancer Res 2003;63:2578-2584.
- Tschentscher F, Prescher G, Horsman DE, et al: Partial deletions of the long and short arm of chromosome 3 point to two tumor suppressor genes in uveal melanoma. Cancer Res 2001;61:3439-3442.
- Young TA, Rao NP, Glasgow BJ, Moral JN, Straatsma BR: Fluorescent in situ hybridization for monosomy 3 via 30-gauge fine-needle aspiration biopsy of choroidal melanoma in vivo. Ophthalmology 2007;114:142-146.
- Damato B, Dopierala J, Klaasen A, van Dijk M, Sibbring J, Coupland SE: Multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification of uveal melanoma: correlation with metastatic death. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2009;50:3048-3055.
- Damato B, Dopierala JA, Coupland SE: Genotypic profiling of 452 choroidal melanomas with multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification. Clin Cancer Res 2010;16:6083-6092.
- Harbour JW, Chen R: The DecisionDx-UM gene expression profile test provides risk stratification and individualized patient care in uveal melanoma. PLoS Curr 2013;5.
- Onken MD, Worley LA, Ehlers JP, Harbour JW: Gene expression profiling in uveal melanoma reveals two molecular classes and predicts metastatic death. Cancer Res 2004;64:7205-7209.
- Beran TM, McCannel TA, Stanton AL, Straatsma BR, Burgess BL: Reactions to and desire for prognostic testing in choroidal melanoma patients. J Genet Couns 2009;18:265-274.
- Onken MD, Worley LA, Tuscan MD, Harbour JW: An accurate, clinically feasible multi-gene expression assay for predicting metastasis in uveal melanoma. J Mol Diagn 2010;12:461-468.
- Werdich XQ, Jakobiec FA, Singh AD, Kim IK: A review of advanced genetic testing for clinical prognostication in uveal melanoma. Semin Ophthalmol 2013;28:361-371.
- Onken MD, Worley LA, Char DH, et al: Collaborative Ocular Oncology Group report number 1: prospective validation of a multi-gene prognostic assay in uveal melanoma. Ophthalmology 2012;119:1596-1603.
- Walter SD, Chao DL, Feuer W, Schiffman J, Char DH, Harbour JW: Prognostic implications of tumor diameter in association with gene expression profile for uveal melanoma. JAMA Ophthalmol 2016;134:734-740.
- Chang MY, Rao NP, Burgess BL, Johnson L, McCannel TA: Heterogeneity of monosomy 3 in fine needle aspiration biopsy of choroidal melanoma. Mol Vis 2013;19:1892-1900.
- Coupland SE, Kalirai H, Ho V, Thornton S, Damato BE, Heimann H: Concordant chromosome 3 results in paired choroidal melanoma biopsies and subsequent tumour resection specimens. Br J Ophthalmol 2015;99:1444-1450.
- Damato B, Duke C, Coupland SE, et al: Cytogenetics of uveal melanoma: a 7-year clinical experience. Ophthalmology 2007;114:1925-1931.
- Dopierala J, Damato BE, Lake SL, Taktak AF, Coupland SE: Genetic heterogeneity in uveal melanoma assessed by multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2010;51:4898-4905.
- Klufas MA, Itty S, McCannel CA, Glasgow BJ, Moreno C, McCannel TA: Variable results for uveal melanoma-specific gene expression profile prognostic test in choroidal metastasis. JAMA Ophthalmol 2015;133:1073-1076.
- Seider MI, Stewart PJ, Mishra KK, Damato BE: Uveal melanoma gene expression profile test result provided for uveal metastasis. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina 2014;45:441-442.
- Damato B, Eleuteri A, Taktak AF, Coupland SE: Estimating prognosis for survival after treatment of choroidal melanoma. Prog Retin Eye Res 2011;30:285-295.
Article / Publication Details
Copyright / Drug Dosage / DisclaimerCopyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.