» Articles » PMID: 7641204

Multiple Myeloma: High Incidence of Chromosomal Aneuploidy As Detected by Interphase Fluorescence in Situ Hybridization

Overview
Journal Cancer Res
Specialty Oncology
Date 1995 Sep 1
PMID 7641204
Citations 33
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Because metaphase cytogenetic studies in multiple myeloma (MM) are hampered by a low proliferative activity of myeloma cells in vitro, interphase cytogenetics by means of fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) should improve the detection of chromosomal abnormalities in MM. We therefore investigated chromosomal aneuploidy in 36 patients with MM using interphase FISH and alpha-satellite DNA probes for chromosomes 1, 3, 7, 8, 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, and X. By FISH, myeloma cells from 32 patients (88.9%) were aneuploid for at least one of the chromosomes examined. In 24 patients (66%), aberrations of > or = 3 chromosomes were observed. Aneuploidy was predominantly characterized by a gain of chromosome numbers, with involvement of chromosomes 3, 7, and 11 occurring in > 50% of patients. Loss of a centromeric signal suggesting monosomy was most frequently observed for chromosomes 17 (22.2% of patients) and X (monosomic in 42.3% of female patients, but loss of chromosome X was never observed in males, P < 0.05). Dual-color FISH studies provided evidence for marked heterogeneity of aneuploid cells in 8 patients (22.8%). Occurrence of chromosomal aneuploidy was independent of stage and pretreatment status. Gain of chromosome 3 was significantly correlated with an IgA paraprotein (P < 0.05). In 12 patients, the direct comparison of metaphase cytogenetics and FISH showed that FISH detected aneuploidy of chromosomes in 9 patients that was missed by metaphase analysis. In conclusion, interphase FISH, by which chromosomal aneuploidy was detected in almost 90% of patients with MM, represents an approach for evaluating the clinical significance of specific chromosomal abnormalities in MM.

Citing Articles

TTK/MPS1 inhibitor OSU-13 targets the mitotic checkpoint and is a potential therapeutic strategy for myeloma.

Longo L, Hughes T, McNeil-Laidley B, Cottini F, Hilinski G, Merritt E Haematologica. 2023; 109(2):578-590.

PMID: 37496433 PMC: 10828771. DOI: 10.3324/haematol.2023.282838.


A personalized molecular approach in multiple myeloma: the possible use of RAF/RAS/MEK/ERK and BCL-2 inhibitors.

Raimondi V, Iannozzi N, Burroughs-Garcia J, Toscani D, Storti P, Giuliani N Explor Target Antitumor Ther. 2022; 3(4):463-479.

PMID: 36071980 PMC: 9446161. DOI: 10.37349/etat.2022.00095.


Genome Instability in Multiple Myeloma: Facts and Factors.

Aksenova A, Zhuk A, Lada A, Zotova I, Stepchenkova E, Kostroma I Cancers (Basel). 2021; 13(23).

PMID: 34885058 PMC: 8656811. DOI: 10.3390/cancers13235949.


Chromosome 1q21 abnormalities in multiple myeloma.

Schmidt T, Fonseca R, Usmani S Blood Cancer J. 2021; 11(4):83.

PMID: 33927196 PMC: 8085148. DOI: 10.1038/s41408-021-00474-8.


A Journey Through Myeloma Evolution: From the Normal Plasma Cell to Disease Complexity.

Da Via M, Ziccheddu B, Maeda A, Bagnoli F, Perrone G, Bolli N Hemasphere. 2020; 4(6):e502.

PMID: 33283171 PMC: 7710229. DOI: 10.1097/HS9.0000000000000502.