Copy number assessment in the genomic analysis of CNS neoplasia: An evidence-based review from the cancer genomics consortium (CGC) working group on primary CNS tumors.

The period from the 1990s to the 2010s has witnessed a burgeoning sea change in the practice of surgical neuropathology due to the incorporation of genomic data into the assessment of a range of central nervous system (CNS) neoplasms. This change has since matured into the adoption of genomic information into the definition of several World Health Organization (WHO)-established diagnostic entities. The data needed to accomplish the modern diagnosis of CNS neoplasia includes DNA copy number aberrations that may be assessed through a variety of mechanisms. Through a review of the relevant literature and professional practice guidelines, here we provide a condensed and scored overview of the most critical DNA copy number aberrations to assess for a selection of primary CNS neoplasms.

Multimodality Technologies in the Assessment of Hematolymphoid Neoplasms.

Accurate assessment of tissues for hematolymphoid neoplasms requires an integrated multiparameter approach. Although morphologic examination by light microscopy remains the mainstay of initial assessment for hematolymphoid neoplasms, immunophenotypic analysis by immunohistochemistry and/or flow cytometry is essential to determine the pattern of differentiation and to detect minimal disease when morphology is inconclusive. In some cases, immunophenotypic analysis provides additional information for targeted immunotherapy and prognostication. Genotypic studies, including cytogenetics, fluorescence in situ hybridization, DNA microarray, polymerase chain reaction, and/or next-generation sequencing, are also imperative for subclassification of the genetically defined disease entities in the current World Health Organization classification of hematolymphoid neoplasms. Moreover, genotypic studies can establish clonality, stratify patients to determine appropriate treatment, and monitor patients for treatment response.

Peripheral blood monitoring of chronic myeloid leukemia during treatment with imatinib, second-line agents, and beyond.

BACKGROUND: The current study was conducted to compare simultaneously obtained bone marrow (BM) cytogenetics (CTG), peripheral blood (PB) and BM fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), and quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (Q-PCR) for BCR-ABL1 in monitoring response to treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitors and homoharringtonine (HHT) in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). METHODS: PB and BM FISH (n = 112 samples) and/or Q-PCR (n = 132 samples) for BCR-ABL1 were simultaneously obtained in 70 patients with Philadelphia chromosome-positive (Ph+) CML in chronic (68%), accelerated (16%), and blast phase (16%) before the initiation of therapy and during the course of treatment with imatinib (IM) (n = 40 patients), dasatinib (n = 20 patients), nilotinib (n = 4 patients), bosutinib (n = 18 patients), or HHT (n = 4 patients) for patients with newly diagnosed (n = 13 patients), IM-sensitive (n = 34 patients), IM-resistant (n = 30 patients), or IM-intolerant (n = 9 patients) disease. Eighteen patients were found to have Ph+ variants or karyotypic abnormalities in addition to the Ph+. RESULTS: Excellent correlations (r) were observed between PB and BM FISH (r = 0.95) and PB and BM Q-PCR (r = 0.87), as well as BM CTG and PB FISH (r = 0.89) and PB Q-PCR (r = 0.82). This correlation was not affected by the presence of the Ph+ variant or additional chromosomal abnormalities, the presence of ABL1 kinase domain mutations, phase of the disease, or treatment. CONCLUSIONS: PB FISH and Q-PCR appear to be reliable methods with which to monitor response to modern therapy in patients with all phases of CML.