DocumentsDate added
Research article
Ibrahim Bakhit Yousif Elemam1*, Mohammed Abdalgadir Elsheikh2, Areeg Mohammed Ali Elnour3, Habiba Mohieldeen Mohammed Abd Elhaleem4, Awad Eljeed Abugooda Alobaid5
1 Department of Histopathology and Cytology, Faculty of Medical Laboratory Sciences, Shendi University, Sudan
2 Department of Histopathology and Cytology, School of Medical Laboratory Sciences, Sharq Elneil College
3 Medical Laboratory Program, Al Yarmouk Colleges, Sudan
4 Faculty of Medical Laboratory Sciences, Shendi University, Sudan, Sudan
5 Medical Laboratory Program, Al Yarmouk Colleges, Sudan
Address reprint requests to
*Ibrahim Bakhit Yousif Elemam,
Department of Histopathology and Cytology, Faculty of Medical Laboratory Sciences, Shendi University, Sudan
Background Prostatic adenocarcinoma is the most PREVALENT cancer and the second cause of cancer related death among men; the tumour proliferative activity is difficult to measure histologically. Increasing EVIDENCE suggests that the factors controlling cell cycle progression also modulate the rate of ribosome biogenesis; and can assess the proliferative activity.The present study aimed to assess the proliferation activity in prostate cancer.
Materials and Methods A total of 40 various prostatic lesions were studied, 20 cases of prostatic adenocarcinomas (study group) and 20 cases of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) as (control group). Sections of 3-μ thickness was obtained from each formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue block using rotary microtome and it was stained using haematoxylin and eosin (Mayer’s technique) and AgNOR stains.Results The majority of patients with BPH and prostate adenocarcinoma were in their sixth to eighth decade of life. The BPH samples displayed fewer AgNORs (mean 2.0 dots/cell) compare to adenocarcinomas (mean 4.1 dots/cell), p value was (0.001). Therefore this data indicate that analysis of silver staining-positive material in intact interphase cells may help distinguish between benign and malignant prostatic tumours.Conclusions AgNOR have a value in distinguishing between BPH and adenocarcinoma of the prostate.
KEYWORDS Fprostate, carcinoma, prostatic hyperplasia, AgNORs
Statement of originality of work: The manuscript has been read and approved by all the authors, the requirements for authorship have been met, and that each author believes that the manuscript represents honest and original work.
Source of funding: None.
Competing interest / Conflict of interest:
The author(s) have no competing interests for financial support, publication of this research,patents, and royalties through this collaborative research. All authors were equally involved in discussed research work. There is no financial conflict with the subject matter discussed in the manuscript.
Disclaimer: Any views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of Defense. The manuscript is original and is not published or communicated for publication elsewhere either in part or full.
Original article
Blau Olga1,Bulegenova Minira2*,Karazhanova Meryert3,Nurpisova Dina4, Jolbaeva Kaliyash5, Makhneva Anna6, Boranbaeva Riza7
1Professor, Head of Genetic Laboratory, Charite University, School of Medicine, Germany Professor,2 Specialist, 3,4 and Head,7 Department, Scientific Center of Pediatrics and Children Surgery, Kazakhstan
5,6Cytogenetic Laboratory, Scientific Center of Pediatrics and Children Surgery, Kazakhstan
The name of the department(s) and institution(s) to which the work should be attributed:
Charite University, School of medicine, Germany. Scientific Center of Pediatrics and Children Surgery, Kazakhstan
Address reprint requests to
*Minira Bulegenova, Professor and Head of Laboratory Department, Scientific Center of Pediatrics and Children Surgery, Al Farabi av., Kazakhstan
Article citation: Olga B, Minira B, Meryert K, Dina N, Kaliyash J, Anna M, Riza B. Comparative investigation of conventional cytogenetic and fluorescence in situ hybridization in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia. J Pharm Biomed Sci 2015;05(11):884–889. Available at www.jpbms.info
Abstract:
Acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) is the most common malignancy in childhood. Chromosomal aberrations are independent prognostic factors. Conventional cytogenetics is routinely used in the initial assessment. Nevertheless, karyotyping is often hampered by low mitotic index of malignant cells, poor chromosomal morphology and difficulties in interpretation of chromosome rearrangement. Interphase FISH provides an alternative approach to detect abnormalities in nondividing cells and also is essential for the identification of cryptic abnormalities. In the present study we analysed 56 children with ALL using both cytogenetic and FISH techniques to determine diagnostic accuracy of the both methods. FISH probes for AML1-ELN, BCR-ABL, and MLL rearrangement were used. Karyotyping was successful in 77% of cases. Cytogenetic study discovered abnormalities in 51% from succeeded karyotyping.
FISH revealed chromosomal aberration in 62.5%. FISH confirmed all cases with clonal aberrations, observed with conventional cytogenetics. Among patients with normal karyotype, 24% were detected to have clonal aberrations by FISH. Also, FISH analysis was extremely useful to detection of alteration involving of AML1 and TEL genes. We demonstrate that interphase FISH is available to detect more prognostic important genetic abnormalities than conventional cytogenetic. Cytogenetic analysis combined with FISH produced significant improvements in the sensitivity and accuracy in identification of the of risk stratification of patients.
KEYWORDS acute lymphoblastic leukemia, cytogenetics, FISH, TEL-AML, BCR-ABL, MLL
Statement of originality of work: The manuscript has been read and approved by all the authors, the requirements for authorship have been met, and that each author believes that the manuscript represents honest and original work.
Source of funding: None.
Competing interest / Conflict of interest:
The author(s) have no competing interests for financial support, publication of this research,patents, and royalties through this collaborative research. All authors were equally involved in discussed research work. There is no financial conflict with the subject matter discussed in the manuscript.
Disclaimer: Any views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of Defense.
REFERENCES
1.Greaves M. Infection, immune responses and the aetiology of childhood leukaemia. Nat Rev Cancer. 2006;6:193–203.
2.Pui CH, Relling MV, Downing JR. Acute lymphoblastic leukemia. N Engl J Med. 2004;350(15):1535–48.
3.Mrózek K, Bloomfield СD. Clinical significance of the most common chromosome translocations in adult acute myeloid leukemia. Blood. 2013;122(10):1761–9.
4.Plasschaert SL, Kamps WA, Vellenga E, de Vries EG, de Bont ES. Prognosis in childhood and adult acute lymphoblastic leukaemia: a question of maturation? Cancer Treat Rev. 2004;30(1):37–51.
5.Lampert R, Harbott J, Boerhardt A. Cytogenetic aspects of childhood leukemias. Klin Padiatr. 2013;225(Suppl 1):30–3.
6.Pui CH, Chessells JM, Camitta B, Baruchel A, Biondi A, Boyett JM,et al. Clinical heterogeneity in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia with 11q23 rearrangements. Leukemia. 2003;17:700–6.
7.Moorman AV, Harrison CJ, Buck GA, Richards SM, Secker-Walker LM, Martineau M, et al. Karyotype is an independent prognostic factor in adult acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL): analysis of cytogenetic data from patients treated on the Medical Research Council (MRC) UKALLXII/ Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) 2993 trial. Blood. 2007;109:3189–97.
8.Foà R, Vitale A, Mancini M, Cuneo A, Mecucci C, Elia L, et al. E2APBX1 fusion in adult acute lymphoblastic leukaemia: biological and clinical features. Br J Haematol. 2003;120(3):484–7.
9.Harrison CJ, Moorman AV, Barber KE, Broadfield ZJ, Cheung KL, Harris RL, et al. Interphase molecular cytogenetic screening for chromosomal abnormalities of prognostic significance in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukaemia: a UK Cancer Cytogenetics Group Study. Br J Haematol. 2005;129:520–30.
10.Romana SP, Le Coniat M, Berger R. t(12;21): a new recurrent translocation in acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Genes, Chromosomes Cancer. 1994;9:186–91. Robinson HM, Martineau M, Harris RL, et al. Derivative chromosome 9 deletions are a significant feature of childhood Philadelphia chromosome positive acute lymphoblastic leukaemia. Leukemia. 2005;19(4):564–71.
12.Pedersen RK, Kerndrup GB, Sørensen AG, et al. Cytogenetic aberrations in adult acute lymphoblastic leukemia: optimal technique may influence the results. Cancer Genet Cytogenet. 2001;128:7–10.
13.Heerema NA, Nachman JB, Sather HN, Sensel MG, Lee MK, Hutchinson R, et al. Hypodiploidy with less than 45 chromosomes confers adverse risk in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia: a report from the Children’s Cancer Group. Blood. 1999;94:4036–46.
14.Osato M. Point mutations in the RUNX1/AML1 gene: another actor in RUNX leukemia. Oncogene. 2004;23:4284–96.
15.Yanagida M, Osato M, Yamashita N, Liqun H, Jacob B, Wu F, et al. Increased dosage of Runx1/AML1 acts as a positive modulator of myeloid leukemogenesis in BXH2 mice. Oncogene. 2005;24(28):4477–85.
16.Gandemer V, Auclerc MF, Perel Y, et al. Impact of age, leukocyte count and day 21-bone marrow response to chemotherapy on the long-term outcome of children with philadelphia chromosomepositive acute lymphoblastic leukemia in the pre-imatinib era:results of the FRALLE 93 study. BMC Cancer. 2009; 9:1–8.