TABLE 2
FROM:
Sensitive detection of tumour cells in effusions by combining cytology and fluorescence in situ hybridisation (FISH)
M Fiegl, A Massoner, M Haun, W Sturm, H Kaufmann, R Hack, J Krugmann, M Fritzer-Szekeres, K Grünewald and G Gastl
BACK TO ARTICLETable 2. Definition of criteria which enabled the diagnosis of tumour-associated aneuploidy by FISH in a two-step microscopic evaluation of effusion specimens
| Step of evaluation | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| First: single-colour FISH | Second: dual-colour FISH | Specificity | ||
| Effusions (n=358) | Series 1 (n=201) | Malignant, if above the respective cutoff (see Table 3) |
Malignant, if  20 cells with chromosomal gain detected, of which >50% aneuploid | 100% (based on 15 control effusions) |
| Series 2 (n=157) |
Malignant, if 5% of scored nuclei with chromosomal gain, or 15% monosomic |
Malignant, if 20 cells with chromosomal gain detected, of which >60% aneuploid | 97% (based on 66 control effusions) | |
a Between series 1 and series 2, the cutoffs in single-colour and dual-colour FISH evaluation differed, as indicated in the table. Briefly, in the first step of evaluation, nuclei in an effusion were evaluated in single-colour evaluation, and, if the percentage of nuclei was above cutoff for any of the evaluated chromosomes, a diagnosis positive for malignant cell involvement was given. If the diagnosis was negative, the second step of evaluation in dual-colour FISH evaluation followed: upon screening of about 10 000–20 000 nuclei, only nuclei with hyperdisomy were recorded; those with concordant signal gain (e.g., 4/4-pattern) were classified as polyploid, whereas those with discordant signal gain (e.g., 3/5-pattern) were classified as aneuploid. Aneuploidy above cutoff as indicated in the table was diagnostic for malignancy (also detailed in Fiegl et al, 2000, 2004).
