DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Diagnostic Value of Fluorescence in Situ Hybridization Assay in Malignant Mesothelioma: A Meta-analysis

  • Wan, Chun (Division of Pulmonary Diseases, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy of China and Department of Respiratory Medicine, West China Hospital of Sichuan University) ;
  • Shen, Yong-Chun (Division of Pulmonary Diseases, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy of China and Department of Respiratory Medicine, West China Hospital of Sichuan University) ;
  • Liu, Meng-Qi (Department of Radiology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Chongqing Medical University) ;
  • Yang, Ting (Division of Pulmonary Diseases, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy of China and Department of Respiratory Medicine, West China Hospital of Sichuan University) ;
  • Wang, Tao (Division of Pulmonary Diseases, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy of China and Department of Respiratory Medicine, West China Hospital of Sichuan University) ;
  • Chen, Lei (Division of Pulmonary Diseases, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy of China and Department of Respiratory Medicine, West China Hospital of Sichuan University) ;
  • Yi, Qun (Division of Pulmonary Diseases, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy of China and Department of Respiratory Medicine, West China Hospital of Sichuan University) ;
  • Wen, Fu-Qiang (Division of Pulmonary Diseases, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy of China and Department of Respiratory Medicine, West China Hospital of Sichuan University)
  • Published : 2012.09.30

Abstract

The diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma (MM) remains a clinical challenge and the fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) assay has been reported to be one promising tool. The present meta-analysis aimed to establish the overall diagnostic accuracy of FISH for diagnosing MM. After a systematic review of English language studies, the sensitivity, specificity and other measures of accuracy of FISH in the diagnosis of MM were pooled using random-effects models. Summary receiver operating characteristic curves were applied to summarize overall test performance. Nine studies met our inclusion criteria, the pooled sensitivity and specificity for FISH for diagnosing MM being 0.72 (95% CI 0.67-0.76) and 1.00 (95% CI 0.98-1.00), respectively. The positive likelihood ratio was 34.5 (95% CI 14.5-82.10), the negative likelihood ratio was 0.24 (95% CI 0.16-0.36), and the diagnostic odds ratio was 204.9 (95% CI 76.8-546.6), the area under the curve being 0.99. Our data suggest that the FISH assay is likely to be a useful diagnostic tool for confirming MM. However, considering the limited studies and patients included, further large scale studies are needed to confirm these findings.

References

  1. Allen TG (2005). Recognization of histopathologic patterns of diffuse malignant mesothelioma in differential diagnosis of pleural biopsies. Arch Pathol Lab Med, 129, 1415-20.
  2. British Thoracic Society Standards of Care Committee (2007). BTS statement on malignant mesothelioma in the UK, 2007. Thorax, 62, ii1 - 19. https://doi.org/10.1136/thx.2007.087619
  3. Chapman A, Mulrennan S, Ladd B, Muers MF (2008). Population based epidemiology and prognosis of mesothelioma in Leeds, UK. Thorax, 63, 435-9. https://doi.org/10.1136/thx.2007.081430
  4. Chiosea S, Krasinskas A, Cagle PT, et al (2008). Diagnostic importance of 9p21 homozygous deletion in malignant mesotheliomas. Modern Pathol, 21, 742-7. https://doi.org/10.1038/modpathol.2008.45
  5. Chung CT, Santos Gda C, Hwang DM, et al (2010). FISH assay development for the detection of p16/CDKN2A deletion in malignant pleural mesothelioma. J Clin Pathol, 63, 630-4. https://doi.org/10.1136/jcp.2010.076794
  6. Dacic S, Kothmaier H, Land S, et al (2008). Prognostic significance of p16/cdkn2a loss in pleural malignant mesotheliomas. Virchows Arch, 453, 627-35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-008-0689-3
  7. Deville WL, Buntinx F, Bouter LM, et al (2002). Conducting systematic reviews of diagnostic studies: didactic guidelines. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2, 9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-2-9
  8. Factor RE, Dal CP, Fletcher JA, Cibas ES (2009). Cytogenetics and fluorescence in situ hybridization as adjuncts to cytology in the diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma. Cancer, 117, 247-53.
  9. Flores-Staino C, Darai-Ramqvist E, Dobra K, Hjerpe A (2010). Adaptation of a commercial fluorescent in situ hybridization test to the diagnosis of malignant cells in effusions. Lung Cancer, 68, 39-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lungcan.2009.05.004
  10. Glas AS, Lijmer JG, Prins MH, et al (2003). The diagnostic odds ratio: a single indicator of test performance. J Clin Epidemiol, 56, 1129-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0895-4356(03)00177-X
  11. Husain AN, Colby TV, Ordonez NG, et al (2009). Guidelines for pathologic diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma: a consensus statement from the International Mesothelioma Interest Group. Arch Pathol Lab Med, 133, 1317-31.
  12. Illei PB, Ladanyi M, Rusch VW, Zakowski MF (2003). The use of CDKN2A deletion as a diagnostic marker for malignant mesothelioma in body cavity effusions. Cancer, 99, 51-6.
  13. Leeflang MM, Deeks JJ, Gatsonis C, Bossuyt PM (2008). Cochrane Diagnostic Test Accuracy Working Group: Systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy. Ann Intern Med, 149, 889-97. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-149-12-200812160-00008
  14. Lijmer JG, Bossuyt PM, Heisterkamp SH (2002). Exploring sources of heterogeneity in systematic reviews of diagnostic tests. Stat Med, 21, 1525-37. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1185
  15. Lopez-Rios F, Chuai S, Flores R, (2006). Global gene expression profiling of pleural mesotheliomas: overexpression of aurora kinases and P16/CDKN2A deletion as prognostic factors and critical evaluation of microarray-based prognostic prediction. Cancer Res, 66, 2970-9. https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-05-3907
  16. Luo L, Shi HZ, Liang QL, et al (2010). Diagnostic value of soluble mesothelin-related peptides for malignant mesothelioma: a meta-analysis. Resp Med, 104, 149-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmed.2009.05.017
  17. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG (2009). PRISMA Group: Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med, 6, e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
  18. Monaco SE, Shuai Y, Bansal M, et al (2011). The diagnostic utility of p16 FISH and GLUT-1 immunohistochemical analysis in mesothelial proliferations. Am J Clin Pathol, 135, 619-27. https://doi.org/10.1309/AJCPP5R2ZJZKCLWN
  19. Musti M, Kettunen E, Dragonieri S, et al (2006). Cytogenetic and molecular genetic changes in malignant mesothelioma. Cancer Genet Cytogen, 170, 9-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cancergencyto.2006.04.011
  20. Onofre FB, Onofre AS, Pomjanski N, et al (2008). 9p21 Deletion in the diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma in serous effusions additional to immunocytochemistry, DNA-ICM, and AgNOR analysis. Cancer, 114, 204-15. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.23413
  21. Pereira TC, Saad RS, Liu Y, Silverman JF (2006). The diagnosis of malignancy in effusion cytology: a pattern recognition approach. Adv Anat Pathol, 13, 174-84. https://doi.org/10.1097/00125480-200607000-00004
  22. Robinson BW, Lake RA (2005). Advances in malignant mesothelioma. N Engl J Med, 353, 1591- 603. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra050152
  23. Savic S, Franco N, Grilli B, et al (2010): Fluorescence in situ hybridization in the definitive diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma in effusion cytology. Chest, 138, 137-44. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.10261
  24. Senyigit A, Bayram H, Babayigit C, et al (2000). Malignant pleural mesothelioma caused by environmental exposure to asbestos in the Southeast of Turkey: CT fi ndings in 117 patients. Respiration, 67, 615-22. https://doi.org/10.1159/000056290
  25. Shin HJ, Shin DM, Tarco E, Sneige N (2003). Detection of numerical aberrations of chromosomes 7 and 9 in cytologic specimens of pleural malignant mesothelioma. Cancer , 99, 233-39. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.11398
  26. Takeda M, Kasai T, Enomoto Y, et al (2010). 9p21 deletion in the diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma, using fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis. Pathol Int, 60, 395-99. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1827.2010.02534.x
  27. Takeda M, Kasai T, Enomoto Y, et al (2012). Genomic gains and losses in malignant mesothelioma demonstrated by FISH analysis of paraffin-embedded tissues. J Clin Pathol, 65, 77-82. https://doi.org/10.1136/jclinpath-2011-200208
  28. Tsuchiya KD (2011). Fluorescence in situ hybridization. Clin Lab Med, 31, 525-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cll.2011.08.011
  29. Walter SD (2002). Properties of the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve for diagnostic test data. Stat Med, 21, 1237-56. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1099
  30. Whitaker D (2000). The cytology of malignant mesothelioma. Cytopathology, 11, 139-51. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2303.2000.00247.x
  31. Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, et al (2003). The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol, 3, 25. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-3-25

Cited by

  1. Guidelines for the Cytopathologic Diagnosis of Epithelioid and Mixed-Type Malignant Mesothelioma: a secondary publication vol.26, pp.3, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1111/cyt.12250
  2. Guidelines for the cytopathologic diagnosis of epithelioid and mixed-type malignant mesothelioma: Complementary Statement from the International Mesothelioma Interest Group, Also Endorsed by the International Academy of Cytology and the Papanicolaou Socie vol.43, pp.7, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1002/dc.23271
  3. Cytopathologic Diagnosis of Epithelioid and Mixed-Type Malignant Mesothelioma: Ten Years of Clinical Experience in Relation to International Guidelines vol.142, pp.8, 2018, https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2018-0020-RA
  4. Treatment of Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline vol.36, pp.13, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2017.76.6394