RESUMO
Conventional cytogenetic and routine I-FISH (interphase fluorescence in-situ hybridization) studies periodically present discrepant results on the same sample calling into question their validity. Generally it is expected that these tests confirm each other, otherwise there is concern that they may represent laboratory error. We present data showing that these discrepant results are rarely due to laboratory error, and that M-FISH (metaphase fluorescence in-situ hybridization) can usually reconcile them by identifying the nature of these differences. This report includes 32 bone marrow (BM) samples from patients with hematologic neoplasms that showed incongruent cytogenetic/I-FISH results. M-FISH was selectively applied for further clarification of these discrepancies when deemed necessary. This study evaluated BM samples in our laboratory (Integrated Oncology, Phoenix, AZ) that represented 5 major categories of hematologic disorders (MDS/AML, MPN, NHL, CLL, & PCN). Five general categories of these cases were identified: 1) laboratory error (clerical), 2) limited resolution of testing methods, 3) cellular response to culture/preparative conditions, 4) cytogenetic bi-clonality and 5) failed hybridizations due to cover-slipping. Our results suggest that the majority of discrepant results are related to the intrinsic nature of the malignant cells (and how they respond to their growth environment) evaluated by these two testing methods.