DNA in situ hybridization (interphase cytogenetics) versus comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) in human cancer: detection of numerical and structural chromosome aberrations

Abstract

DNA in situ hybridization techniques for cytogenetic analyses of human solid cancers are nowadays widely used for diagnostic and research purposes. The advantage of this methodology is that it can be applied to cells in the interphase state, thereby circumventing the need for high-quality metaphase preparations for karyotypic evaluation. In situ hybridization (ISH) with chromosome specific (peri)centromeric DNA probes, also termed "interphase cytogenetics", can be used to detect numerical changes, whereas comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) discloses chromosomal gains and losses, i.e. amplifications and deletions. We wanted to compare both methods in human solid tumors, and for this goal we evaluated ISH and CGH within a set of 20 selected prostatic adenocarcinomas. Chromosomes 7 and 8 were chosen for this analysis, since these chromosomes are frequently altered in prostate cancer. ISH with chromosome 7 and 8 specific centromeric DNA probes was applied to standard, formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded, histological sections for numerical chromosome analysis. CGH with DNA's, extracted from the same histologic area of the archival specimens, was used for screening of gains and losses of 7 and 8. ISH with centromeric probes distinguished a total of 26 numerical aberrations of chromosome 7 and/or 8 in the set of 20 neoplasms. In the same set CGH revealed a total of 35 losses and gains. CGH alterations of 7 and 8 were seen in twenty-two of the 26 chromosomes (85%) that showed aberrations in the ISH analysis. Concordance between ISH and CGH was seen in 11 (of 26; 42%) chromosomes. Eight chromosomes were involved in gains (5 x #7, 3 x #8), three in losses (3 x #8). This included both complete (3/11) and partial (8/11) CGH confirmation of the numerical alteration. Partial CGH confirmation was defined as loss or gain of a chromosome arm with involvement of the centromeric region. In the majority of these cases it concerned a whole chromosome arm, mostly the long arm. We conclude that generally a fair correlation was found between ISH and CGH in interphase preparations of a series of prostate cancers. However, when specified in detail, most of the numerical ISH aberrations were only partly represented in the CGH analysis. On the one hand, it suggests that CGH does not adequately discriminate numerical abnormalities. On the other hand, it likely implies that not all numerical changes, as detected by interphase cytogenetics, are truly involving the whole chromosome. A part of these discrepancies might be caused by structural mechanisms, most notably isochromosome formation.