Sensitivity and specificity of cluster differentiation and friend leukemia integration1 for the diagnosis in a series of molecularly confirmed ewing sarcoma family of tumors

S. Murthy, D. Fonseca, S. Challa, Suseela Kodandapani, S. Arya, S. Gundimeda, B. Rao, F. Ahmed, Manasi C. Mundada, N. Lavanya, S. Rajappa, K. Alluri, V. Koppula, T. Rao
{"title":"Sensitivity and specificity of cluster differentiation and friend leukemia integration1 for the diagnosis in a series of molecularly confirmed ewing sarcoma family of tumors","authors":"S. Murthy, D. Fonseca, S. Challa, Suseela Kodandapani, S. Arya, S. Gundimeda, B. Rao, F. Ahmed, Manasi C. Mundada, N. Lavanya, S. Rajappa, K. Alluri, V. Koppula, T. Rao","doi":"10.4103/oji.oji_8_21","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Immunohistochemistry (IHC) is a cost-effective and routinely available ancillary technique for the diagnosis of Ewing sarcoma family of tumors (ESFT). However, molecular confirmation is needed for precise diagnosis. Aim: This study aimed to determine the sensitivity and specificity of the commonly used IHC markers cluster differentiation (CD99) and friend leukemia integration1 (FLI1) in a series of molecularly confirmed ESFT. Materials and Methods: Retrospective review of the ESFT confirmed by either fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) or reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) during a period of 10 years was done. The demographic, clinical, and radiologic data were noted from medical records. The histology was reviewed with CD99, FLI1, and additional markers, wherever performed. The sensitivity and specificity of CD99 and FLI1 for the diagnosis of ESFT were calculated. Results: There were 72 ESFT patients in the study period, confirmed by FISH (EWSR1 rearrangement) in 53 and RT-PCR (EWS-FLI1) in 19. The female-to-male ratio was 1.06. The median age at diagnosis was 21 years. The cases included 22 skeletal and 50 extraskeletal sites. The positivity of CD99 and FLI1 was 98.46% and 94.83%, respectively, and both were positive in 55/72 (76.39%) cases. The sensitivity and specificity of CD99 were 98.46% and 20%, and those of FLI1 were 94.83% and 28.57%, respectively. Conclusion: Although the sensitivity for CD99 and FLI1 was high, the specificity was low toward the diagnosis of ESFT. The combined use of CD99 and FLI1 could confirm only 76.39% of molecularly confirmed ESFT, emphasizing the need for a precise diagnosis by molecular technique.","PeriodicalId":431823,"journal":{"name":"Oncology Journal of India","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oncology Journal of India","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/oji.oji_8_21","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Immunohistochemistry (IHC) is a cost-effective and routinely available ancillary technique for the diagnosis of Ewing sarcoma family of tumors (ESFT). However, molecular confirmation is needed for precise diagnosis. Aim: This study aimed to determine the sensitivity and specificity of the commonly used IHC markers cluster differentiation (CD99) and friend leukemia integration1 (FLI1) in a series of molecularly confirmed ESFT. Materials and Methods: Retrospective review of the ESFT confirmed by either fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) or reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) during a period of 10 years was done. The demographic, clinical, and radiologic data were noted from medical records. The histology was reviewed with CD99, FLI1, and additional markers, wherever performed. The sensitivity and specificity of CD99 and FLI1 for the diagnosis of ESFT were calculated. Results: There were 72 ESFT patients in the study period, confirmed by FISH (EWSR1 rearrangement) in 53 and RT-PCR (EWS-FLI1) in 19. The female-to-male ratio was 1.06. The median age at diagnosis was 21 years. The cases included 22 skeletal and 50 extraskeletal sites. The positivity of CD99 and FLI1 was 98.46% and 94.83%, respectively, and both were positive in 55/72 (76.39%) cases. The sensitivity and specificity of CD99 were 98.46% and 20%, and those of FLI1 were 94.83% and 28.57%, respectively. Conclusion: Although the sensitivity for CD99 and FLI1 was high, the specificity was low toward the diagnosis of ESFT. The combined use of CD99 and FLI1 could confirm only 76.39% of molecularly confirmed ESFT, emphasizing the need for a precise diagnosis by molecular technique.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
聚类分化和友性白血病整合1在一系列分子证实的尤文氏肉瘤家族肿瘤诊断中的敏感性和特异性
背景:免疫组织化学(IHC)是诊断尤文氏肉瘤家族肿瘤(ESFT)的一种成本效益高且常规可用的辅助技术。然而,精确诊断需要分子确认。目的:本研究旨在确定一系列分子证实的ESFT中常用的免疫组化标记簇分化(CD99)和友白血病整合1 (FLI1)的敏感性和特异性。材料和方法:对10年来荧光原位杂交(FISH)或逆转录聚合酶链反应(RT-PCR)证实的ESFT进行回顾性分析。从医疗记录中记录了人口统计学、临床和放射学数据。用CD99, FLI1和其他标记物检查组织学,无论在哪里进行。计算CD99和FLI1对ESFT诊断的敏感性和特异性。结果:研究期间共有72例ESFT患者,经FISH (EWSR1重排)鉴定53例,RT-PCR (EWS-FLI1)鉴定19例。男女比例为1.06。诊断时的中位年龄为21岁。病例包括22个骨骼部位和50个骨骼外部位。CD99和FLI1的阳性率分别为98.46%和94.83%,其中55/72(76.39%)例均为阳性。CD99的敏感性和特异性分别为98.46%和20%,FLI1的敏感性和特异性分别为94.83%和28.57%。结论:CD99和FLI1对ESFT的诊断敏感性较高,但特异性较低。CD99和FLI1联合应用对ESFT的分子确诊率仅为76.39%,强调了分子技术精确诊断的必要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
CD8-positive T-cell lymphoma of the thyroid: A rare case Burned-out testicular tumor presenting as cervical and retroperitoneal lymphadenopathy Nasal sebaceous carcinoma: A case treated at a tertiary care center Xanthogranulomatous hypophysitis masquerading as pituitary macroadenoma Cardiotoxicity in breast cancer patients receiving trastuzumab with or without prior anthracycline-based chemotherapy: A prospective study from a tertiary cancer institute at Guwahati, India
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1