Assessment of Biological Damage Induced during Multidetector Computed Tomography (MDCT) Examination.

Computed tomography (CT) is known for its non-invasiveness, fast procedure, and also for providing detailed diagnostic information to physicians. It also utilises low-dose-rate ionising radiation (X-rays) as a source for imaging. Multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) is an advanced system that uses iodinated contrast media for more accurate diagnostic results. Studies suggest using these contrasts will lead to greater radiation adsorption with significant DNA damage. No studies have been taken comparing the physical dose with the biological effect. The present study sheds light on the same by assessing the biological effect of CT with and without contrast intervention. The present study is timebound; thus, 21 participants attending for CT thorax and abdomen with no history of any cancer were included. The same participants underwent both pre-contrast and post-contrast studies. The blood sample was taken before the procedure and used as a control. Physical parameters like DLP and CTDI obtained from the instrument were compared with the MN frequency obtained (CBMN Assay). The study showed a significant increase (p-value < 0.05) in the Physical and MN frequency in the Post-Contrast group compared to the pre-contrast group. Although a positive correlation was observed between pre and post-contrast groups, the results were not found to be statistically significant (p-value < 0.05). The study confirms increased physical dose and MN frequency upon contrast intervention. This study recommends the judicial use of MDCT in disease diagnostics.

Cytogenetic and molecular diagnostic testing associated with prenatal and postnatal birth defects.

Genetic testing is beneficial for patients and providers when in search of answers to medical problems related to the prenatal or early postnatal period. It can help to identify the cause or confirm a diagnosis associated with developmental delay, intellectual disability, dysmorphic features, heart defects, multiple malformations, short stature, stillbirth, neonatal death, or fertility problems. Genetic testing can be used to rule out single-gene or chromosome abnormalities. Different diagnostic cytogenetic and molecular genetic techniques are applied in clinical genetics laboratories, from conventional ones to the state of the art chromosomal microarrays and next-generation sequencing. Each of the genetic techniques or methods has its strengths and limitations, however different methods complement each-other in trying to identify the genetic variation(s) responsible for a medical condition, especially the ones related to birth defects.

Assessing copy number aberrations and copy neutral loss of heterozygosity across the genome as best practice: An evidence based review of clinical utility from the cancer genomics consortium (CGC) working group for myelodysplastic syndrome, myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative and myeloproliferative neoplasms.

Multiple studies have demonstrated the utility of chromosomal microarray (CMA) testing to identify clinically significant copy number alterations (CNAs) and copy-neutral loss-of-heterozygosity (CN-LOH) in myeloid malignancies. However, guidelines for integrating CMA as a standard practice for diagnostic evaluation, assessment of prognosis and predicting treatment response are still lacking. CMA has not been recommended for clinical work-up of myeloid malignancies by the WHO 2016 or the NCCN 2017 guidelines but is a suggested test by the European LeukaemiaNet 2013 for the diagnosis of primary myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS). The Cancer Genomics Consortium (CGC) Working Group for Myeloid Neoplasms systematically reviewed peer-reviewed literature to determine the power of CMA in (1) improving diagnostic yield, (2) refining risk stratification, and (3) providing additional genomic information to guide therapy. In this manuscript, we summarize the evidence base for the clinical utility of array testing in the workup of MDS, myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative neoplasms (MDS/MPN) and myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN). This review provides a list of recurrent CNAs and CN-LOH noted in this disease spectrum and describes the clinical significance of the aberrations and how they complement gene mutation findings by sequencing. Furthermore, for new or suspected diagnosis of MDS or MPN, we present suggestions for integrating genomic testing methods (CMA and mutation testing by next generation sequencing) into the current standard-of-care clinical laboratory testing (karyotype, FISH, morphology, and flow).

Assessing copy number abnormalities and copy-neutral loss-of-heterozygosity across the genome as best practice in diagnostic evaluation of acute myeloid leukemia: An evidence-based review from the cancer genomics consortium (CGC) myeloid neoplasms working group.

Structural genomic abnormalities, including balanced chromosomal rearrangements, copy number gains and losses and copy-neutral loss-of-heterozygosity (CN-LOH) represent an important category of diagnostic, prognostic and therapeutic markers in acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Genome-wide evaluation for copy number abnormalities (CNAs) is at present performed by karyotype analysis which has low resolution and is unobtainable in a subset of cases. Furthermore, examination for possible CN-LOH in leukemia cells is at present not routinely performed in the clinical setting. Chromosomal microarray (CMA) analysis is a widely available assay for CNAs and CN-LOH in diagnostic laboratories, but there are currently no guidelines how to best incorporate this technology into clinical testing algorithms for neoplastic diseases including AML. The Cancer Genomics Consortium Working Group for Myeloid Neoplasms performed an extensive review of peer-reviewed publications focused on CMA analysis in AML. Here we summarize evidence regarding clinical utility of CMA analysis in AML extracted from published data, and provide recommendations for optimal utilization of CMA testing in the diagnostic workup. In addition, we provide a list of CNAs and CN-LOH regions which have documented clinical significance in diagnosis, prognosis and treatment decisions in AML.

A subset of fat-predominant angiomyolipomas label for MDM2: a potential diagnostic pitfall.

Angiomyolipomas (AMLs) are typically benign mesenchymal tumors with variable histologic composition. Fat-predominant AMLs can mimic well-differentiated liposarcomas (WDLSs) both radiographically and histologically because of the abundance of fat with admixed atypical cells resembling lipoblasts. However, the treatment and prognosis of AMLs and WDLSs are vastly different. Immunohistochemistry for murine double minute 2 (MDM2) has been used to support a diagnosis of WDLS; however, MDM2 labeling has not been specifically evaluated in fat-predominant AMLs. Here, we evaluated MDM2 immunohistochemistry in 36 AMLs (including 14 conventional AMLs, 13 fat-predominant AMLs, 6 fat-rich AMLs, 3 epithelioid AMLs) and 10 WDLSs. In addition, we labeled cases for HMB45, calponin, or actin, which are immunostains traditionally used to label AML. We performed fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) for MDM2 amplification on selected cases. By immunohistochemistry, 14% (5/36) of AMLs were MDM2+, including 23% (3/13) of fat-predominant AMLs. All MDM2+ AMLs evaluated by FISH (n=4) were negative for MDM2 amplification. By immunohistochemistry, 90% of WDLSs were MDM2+, and both MDM2+ WDLSs evaluated by FISH (n=2) were MDM2 amplified. All 36 AMLs labeled with HMB45 and calponin or actin. No WDLS labeled with HMB45; however, 80% of WDLSs labeled with calponin or actin. Although uncommon, MDM2 labeling is seen in a subset of fat-predominant AMLs and is a potential diagnostic pitfall in the evaluation of fatty tumors of the retroperitoneum. HMB45 is more sensitive and specific for AML than calponin or actin, and an immunopanel containing both HMB45 and MDM2 may be warranted to distinguish between fat-predominant AML and WDLS in histologically ambiguous cases.