Free
Anatomy and Pathology/Oncology  |   May 2012
Comparison of Formalin-Fixed and Snap-Frozen Samples Analyzed by Multiplex Ligation-Dependent Probe Amplification for Prognostic Testing in Uveal Melanoma
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Sarah L. Lake
    Department of Molecular & Clinical Cancer Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom, and Liverpool Ocular Oncology Service, Royal Liverpool University Hospital, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
  • Helen Kalirai
    Department of Molecular & Clinical Cancer Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom, and Liverpool Ocular Oncology Service, Royal Liverpool University Hospital, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
  • Justyna Dopierała
    Department of Molecular & Clinical Cancer Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom, and Liverpool Ocular Oncology Service, Royal Liverpool University Hospital, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
  • Bertil E. Damato
    Department of Molecular & Clinical Cancer Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom, and Liverpool Ocular Oncology Service, Royal Liverpool University Hospital, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
  • Sarah E. Coupland
    Department of Molecular & Clinical Cancer Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom, and Liverpool Ocular Oncology Service, Royal Liverpool University Hospital, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
  • Corresponding author: Sarah E. Coupland, Professor and Honorary Consultant in Pathology, Department of Molecular & Clinical Cancer Medicine, University of Liverpool, 6th Floor Duncan Building, Daulby Street, Liverpool, L69 3GA, UK; Telephone +44-151-706-5885; Fax:+44-151-706-5859; s.e.coupland@liverpool.ac.uk
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2012, Vol.53, 2647-2652. doi:10.1167/iovs.12-9584
  • Views
  • PDF
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Sarah L. Lake, Helen Kalirai, Justyna Dopierała, Bertil E. Damato, Sarah E. Coupland; Comparison of Formalin-Fixed and Snap-Frozen Samples Analyzed by Multiplex Ligation-Dependent Probe Amplification for Prognostic Testing in Uveal Melanoma. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2012;53(6):2647-2652. doi: 10.1167/iovs.12-9584.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose.: Survival of patients with uveal melanoma (UM) correlates strongly with chromosomal abnormalities, such as monosomy 3 and polysomy 8q. Studies have shown multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA) to detect reliably chromosomal aberrations in UM using frozen samples. To date, the concordance between MLPA data generated from frozen and fixed samples has not been investigated. Our study aimed to compare MLPA data obtained from fixed and frozen tissues to determine whether fixed samples can be used in UM genetic prognostic testing.

Methods.: Adjacent samples were taken from 20 UM cases, with one sample being snap-frozen, and the second being formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded (FFPE). MLPA analysis was performed using the P027.B1 assay. The chromosome arm copy numbers obtained for each pair of UM samples then were compared.

Results.: Of the 20 UM cases 18 gave MLPA results from FFPE material that passed quality control thresholds. When chromosome 3 copy number was classified successfully (loss, disomy or gain) using FFPE material, the corresponding frozen sample showed concordance in 100% of cases. However, even when FFPE samples passed quality thresholds, chromosome arm copy numbers for 3p and 3q were “unclassifiable” in 28% and 11% of cases, respectively. This compared to “unclassifiable” cases in 0% and 6% of the frozen UM samples.

Conclusions.: Whenever possible, fresh or snap-frozen tissue should be used for UM genetic prognostic testing by MLPA. When only fixed tissue is available, MLPA can be used to determine reliably chromosome 3 copy number. However, some tumors will be unclassifiable where DNA quality is poor.

Introduction
Almost 50% of all patients with uveal melanoma (UM) die of metastatic disease, which is detectable only rarely when the primary intraocular tumor is treated. There is scope for personalized prognostication, so that patients with a good survival probability can be reassured while targeting screening at high-risk patients. Metastatic disease occurs almost exclusively in patients whose tumor shows chromosome 3 loss and this abnormality is associated with a high mortality. 
Several genetic methods have been used to estimate the survival probability of patients with UM. 14 For several years, we have used multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA) for prognostication and for deciding subsequent patient management. 1,2,57 MLPA tests 31 loci across chromosomes 1p, 3, 6, and 8 to detect chromosome arm copy number. Although less strongly associated with patient survival than monosomy 3 and polysomy 8q, gains of chromosome 6p are associated with good patient prognosis in UM and loss of chromosome 1p is associated with a poorer prognosis.1,8-11 Studies have demonstrated the efficacy of MLPA for prognostication. 1,12 Whenever possible, we have used snap-frozen or fresh tissues; however, in some cases only formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue is available; for example, when analyzing archived samples obtained from patients treated months or years previously. 
Tissue fixation for long-term storage has been shown to cause nucleic acid-protein cross-linking and nucleic acid degradation. 1318 The detrimental effects of tissue fixation on molecular analyses are well documented. 1922 However, by paying due attention to the limitations of such studies, it is possible to obtain useful results using fixed tissues. 21,2325 Several studies have shown MLPA and methylation-specific MLPA to yield reproducible and reliable results using FFPE samples of a wide range of tumors, which include cutaneous melanocytic lesions, 26,27 gliomas, 28 breast carcinoma,29 gastric cancer, 30 and UM. 31 Indeed, Moerland et al., 29 and Buffart et al.,30 demonstrated analogous results from FFPE tissues when MLPA was compared to fluorescence in situ hybridization or array comparative genomic hybridization. 
To our knowledge, no direct comparison of MLPA data generated from fixed and unfixed tissues has yet been performed. The aims of our study, therefore, were to determine: (a) if chromosome arm copy number assessed in FFPE specimens of UM is comparable to that using unfixed samples, and (b) whether FFPE tissue samples are a reliable source of DNA for routine prognostic genetic testing in UM. 
Materials and Methods
Samples
We selected for this study 20 patients undergoing enucleation (n = 15) or local resection (n = 5) of UM between late 2009 and early 2010 at the Royal Liverpool University Hospital (RLUH). Patients had received no other treatment preoperatively. Immediately after such surgery, two approximately equal-sized and adjacent samples were taken from the same area of each UM: one tumor sample was snap-frozen immediately in liquid nitrogen and stored at −86°C, and the second sample was fixed in 10% neutral-buffered formalin for 24-hours before being processed for embedding in paraffin according to standard protocols within the RLUH Histopathology Department. The same procedure was applied to six samples of normal choroid obtained from six enucleated eyes, which served as normal controls for MLPA. 
After harvesting tissues for research purposes, all tumors were fixed in formalin, and processed through to paraffin embedding, for routine diagnostic reporting. The diagnosis of melanoma was confirmed with hematoxylin and eosin (H & E) stained sections and, if necessary, using Melan A immunostains. Spindle and epithelioid cell types were identified using the modified Callendar system. 32 Extravascular matrix patterns were assessed as described previously using the PAS reagent, without counterstaining. 2,31 The mitotic count was obtained by documenting the number of mitoses in 40 high power fields (HPF) using the 40× objective. 2,31  
Informed consent was obtained from each patient and research was performed according to the Tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical approval was obtained for this study from the Local Research Ethics Committee (LREC number 01/103). 
Multiplex Ligation-Dependent Probe Simplification
DNA extraction, DNA quality assessment and quantification, and MLPA were performed as reported previously, and are described briefly below.2,31  
DNA Extraction from Frozen Tissue
Tissues were lysed in 400 μL TSE buffer (10 mM Tris/HCl [pH 7.5], 0.4 M NaCl, 2 mM EDTA [pH 8.0]), 0.9% SDS, and 61.5 mg proteinase K (1.64 mg/μl; Qiagen GmbH, Hilden, Germany) with incubation overnight at 56°C (Eppendorf Thermomixer Comfort; Sigma-Aldrich, Gillinham, UK). A total of 61.5 mg of proteinase K was added after 16 hours and samples were incubated for a further 4 hours. Genomic DNA was isolated by salt (5 M NaCl) and ethanol precipitation, and DNA dissolved in 20 to 100 μL of TE buffer (10 mM Tris [pH 8.5], 1 mM EDTA [pH 8.0]), depending on the size of the DNA pellet. 
DNA Extraction from FFPE Tissue
Tissues were incubated for 16 hours at 56°C (Thermomixer Comfort, Eppendorf) in 125 μL of P-buffer (50 mM Tris-HCl [pH 8.2], 1 mM EDTA, 100 mM NaCl, 0.5% Tween-20, 0.5% NP40, 20 mM dithiothreitol) containing 8.2 mg of proteinase K (Qiagen). Samples were incubated further at 37°C, following the addition of 8.2 mg of proteinase K for 24 hours. Genomic DNA was extracted using the DNeasy Blood and Tissue kit (Qiagen) and the DNA eluted in 40–50 μL of AE buffer. 
DNA Quantification and Quality Assessment
DNA concentration was measured by the NanoDrop Spectrophotometer (Thermo-Fisher Scientific, Cambridge, UK) and its quality was assessed by multiplex PCR (adapted from van Dongen et al. 33 ), as described previously by Dopierala et al. 31  
Multiplex Ligation-Dependent Probe Amplification
Using 200 ng of DNA per reaction, MLPA was performed in triplicate with the P027.B1 UM assay (MRC-Holland, Amsterdam, The Netherlands). Six non-tumor, normal choroid, control samples and a negative (no template) control were analyzed alongside the UM test samples in each reaction. MLPA was performed in a G-Storm GS1 Thermal Cycler (Genetic Research Instrumentats Ltd., Essex, UK) as per the manufacturers' instructions and quantified using the 3130XL Genetic Analyser and GeneMapper software (Applied Biosystems, Paisley, UK). Peak heights were taken as a measure of intensity. 
MLPA data were analyzed using an adapted version of the Excel spreadsheet designed by Andrew Wallace, BSc, PhD, of the National Genetics Reference Laboratory, Manchester, United Kingdom (http://www.ngrl.org.uk/Manchester/), as described previously. 18 MLPA data obtained from frozen UM samples were normalized to MLPA data obtained from the frozen non-tumor control samples, while MLPA data obtained from FFPE uveal melanoma specimens were normalized to the data obtained from the FFPE non-tumor control samples. 
The adapted analysis method allows for the removal of any control loci from an individual MLPA assay if the dosage quotient (DQ) is not within the range for a normal (disomic) copy number (0.85–1.15). MLPA data were considered reliable if the number of control loci within the normal range was ≥ 6 and if the SD of their DQs was <0.2. Of the three MLPA reactions performed for each sample, the reaction with the highest number of control loci (a minimum of 6) and the lowest standard deviation was considered the most reliable, and was used in all further analyses. 
Chromosome copy number for 1p, 3p, 3q, 6p, 6q, and 8q was determined as loss (L), normal diploid (Di) or gain (G) only if ≥75% of the probes had DQs showing the following trends: 
  •  
    Loss (L) = loss (<0.650) or borderline loss (0.650–0.849).
  •  
    Normal diploid (Di) = (0.850–1.150).
  •  
    Gain (G) = gain (>1.340) or borderline gain (1.151–1.340).
Where no consistent trend in ≥75% of the DQs was seen, the chromosome arm copy number was considered “unclassified” (U). Chromosome arm 8p was not included in the analyses due to the presence of only a single probe (NRG1) on this arm. 
Results
Of the 20 paired UM samples included originally in this study, two FFPE samples failed to pass the minimum quality control criteria for MLPA, that is ≥6 control probes in the normal range (DQ 0.850–1.150) and a SD <0.2. Although the corresponding paired frozen samples did pass quality control criteria for MLPA, the two cases were excluded from all further analyses. 
Patients
Clinical, histopathologic, and TNM Staging 35 data from the 18 UM cases included in this study are detailed in Table 1. The patients (10 female, 8 male) had a median age of 58 years (range 37–83). All tumors were choroidal, with three involving ciliary body and none demonstrated extraocular growth. The tumors had a median largest basal diameter of 16.7 mm (range 9.7–21.8). The treatment consisted of local resection in five patients and enucleation in 13, one of whom previously had received proton beam radiotherapy (S011). The melanoma cell type was spindle in eight tumors, epithelioid in one, and mixed cell type in nine. Closed extravascular matrix PAS positive closed loops were present in nine tumors. The median mitotic count was 6.5 in 40 HPF cases. By the close of the study in August 2011, four patients had had metastatic disease (Table 1). 
Table 1.
 
Clinicopathologic Features and Tumor Classification
Table 1.
 
Clinicopathologic Features and Tumor Classification
Tumor Sex Age at PM (y) Clinical Features Histopathologic Features TNM Stage† Metastasis Present
Ciliary Body Involvement Extraocular Extension LBD (mm) UH (mm) Cell Type Closed Loops Mitotic Rate*
1 S164 F 58 N N 9.7 3.2 Mx N <1 2a IIA N
2 S165 M 48 N N 16.8 9.5 Mx Y 6 3a IIB N
3 S167 F 67 N N 14.3 16.8 S N 5 4a IIIA N
4 S168 M 81 Y N 19.2 10.3 Mx N 6 4b IIB N
5 S169 F 46 N N 17.6 9.6 S Y 8 3a IIB Y
6 S170 F 81 Y N 16.6 10.2 Mx Y 8 3b IIIA N
7 S173 M 50 N N 18.0 7.2 Mx Y 16 3a IIB N
8 S176 M 47 N N 14.0 7.7 S Y 15 3a IIB N
9 S180 M 72 N N 16.7 7.7 Mx Y 7 3a IIB N
10 S219 F 83 N N 14.1 13.1 S N 11 3a IIB Y
11 S222 M 60 N N 13.9 7.0 S N 2 3a IIB N
12 S007 F 43 N N 14.4 10.2 S N 2 3a IIB N
13 S008 M 63 Y N 21.8 12.2 E Y 10 4b IIIB Y
14 S009 M 77 N N 19.5 14.9 S N 8 4a IIIA Y
15 S011 F 56 N N 15.0 8.0 Mx Y 4 3a IIB N
16 S012 F 71 N N 19.3 6.1 Mx Y 14 4a IIIA N
17 S013 F 37 N N 12.4 10.6 S N 5 3a IIB N
18 S016 F 59 N N 18.8 9.4 Mx Y 4 4a IIIA N
Multiplex Ligation-Dependent Probe Amplification
Dosage quotients obtained for individual loci on chromosomes 1p, 3, 6, and 8 following MLPA analysis of FFPE and frozen tissue are detailed in supplementary Table 1. The median number of control probes giving a disomic signal and, therefore, included in the normalization process, was 11.5 (range 8–12 probes) for the frozen UM samples and 7 (range 6–12 probes) for the FFPE UM samples. Table 2 summarizes the copy number for each chromosome arm, determined as described in Materials and Methods. 
Table 2.
 
Chromosome Arm Copy Number Detected by MLPA
Table 2.
 
Chromosome Arm Copy Number Detected by MLPA
Tumor Sample Type Chromosome Arm
1p 3p 3q 6p 6q 8q
1 S164 Frozen Di L L Di Di G
FFPE U L L Di U U
2 S165 Frozen Di L L Di Di G
FFPE U L L Di G G
3 S167 Frozen U Di Di G Di G
FFPE U Di Di G Di G
4 S168 Frozen L L L Di Di G
FFPE U L L Di Di Di
5 S169 Frozen L L L U Di G
FFPE Di L L U Di G
6 S170 Frozen Di L L Di Di Di
FFPE U L L Di Di Di
7 S173 Frozen Di Di U G L G
FFPE Di Di U G L G
8 S176 Frozen L L L Di L Di
FFPE L L L L L U
9 S180 Frozen L L L Di Di Di
FFPE L L L Di Di U
10 S219 Frozen Di Di Di Di Di Di
FFPE U U U Di Di U
11 S222 Frozen Di Di Di G G Di
FFPE Di U Di G G G
12 S007 Frozen Di Di Di Di Di Di
FFPE Di U Di Di G Di
13 S008 Frozen U L L Di L G
FFPE L L L L L G
14 S009 Frozen L L L Di Di G
FFPE L L L L Di G
15 S011 Frozen Di Di Di Di Di Di
FFPE Di Di Di U Di Di
16 S012 Frozen Di L L Di Di G
FFPE U L L L Di G
17 S013 Frozen Di Di Di G Di Di
FFPE U U Di G G U
18 S016 Frozen Di Di Di G L G
FFPE U U Di G L G
Chromosome arm 3p received the same classification in 13 cases of paired frozen and FFPE UM. For the remaining five UM cases, chromosome arm 3p was “unclassified” in the FFPE specimens, but their corresponding frozen tissue samples were classified as disomy when tested. For chromosome arm 3q, 17 paired frozen and FFPE UM samples received the same classification but one tumor showed an “unclassified” chromosome 3q copy number when the FFPE tissue was tested compared with a report of disomy 3 in the corresponding frozen UM tissue. 
Copy number data for chromosome arm 8q showed 11 paired frozen and FFPE UM samples with concordant results. Of the seven paired frozen and FFPE UM samples with discordant results for 8q, five produced an “unclassified” result when the FFPE tissue was tested compared with either gain (n = 1) or disomy (n = 4) in the corresponding frozen UM sample. For the remaining two samples with discordant results for 8q, S168 showed a gain in the frozen UM sample but disomy in the FFPE sample with the converse occurring for UM case S122. 
Chromosome arms 6p and 6q demonstrated copy number variations between paired FFPE and frozen UM samples as follows: five frozen UM samples were disomic for 6p but displayed either a loss (n = 4) or were unclassified (n = 1) in the corresponding FFPE sample; four frozen UM samples were disomic for 6q but displayed either a gain (n = 3) or were unclassified (n = 1) in the corresponding FFPE sample. 
Chromosome arm 1p copy number was “unclassified” in eight FFPE UM samples, which were classified as disomy (n = 7) or loss (n = 1) when the corresponding frozen tissues were tested, and in one frozen UM sample, which was classified as a loss of 1p when the corresponding FFPE sample was tested. In addition, UM case S169 showed a loss of 1p in the frozen UM sample but was classified as disomy when examined in the corresponding FFPE tissue. 
Discussion
To our knowledge, this is the first study to compare MLPA results for any malignancy from adjacent snap-frozen and fixed tissue samples from the same tumor. The sampling of adjacent areas of the tumor reduced the potential influence of tumor heterogeneity. 
The semi-quantitative nature of MLPA is achieved by comparison of the peak heights for the test samples with control, non-tumor samples and control probes on chromosomes that are not perturbed by tumorigenesis. In the case of the P027.B1 UM assay applied in this study, control probes are directed to loci located on chromosomes other than 1, 3, 6, and 8. Therefore, to have a robust and reproducible assay, the results of control probes and control samples must be consistent between experiments, and also must have a DQ indicating disomy. The National Genetics Reference Laboratory, United Kingdom (NGRL) suggests that the control probes for each tumor should have an SD of less than 0.2 for MLPA results to be reliable (http://www.ngrl.org.uk/Manchester/publications). In 2010, our laboratory improved upon the suggestions of the NGRL by removing any control probes that did not have a DQ indicating disomy from the final analyses. That is, we consider tumor samples to be of acceptable quality only if they show six or more disomy control probes and a SD <0.2.31  
Our data generated demonstrate that even where samples passed these quality thresholds, chromosome arm copy numbers were “unclassifiable” in some cases. For frozen UM tissue, this occurred in only a single chromosome arm in four of the 18 cases; 1p in S008 and S167, 6p in S169 and 3q in S173. For the fixed UM tissues, however, single or multiple chromosome arms were “unclassifiable” in all but two UM cases suggesting a low signal-to-noise ratio. This increased “noise” is most likely to affect DQs expected to be in the normal disomic range, since these values can be influenced in either a positive or negative manner, leading to an altered classification. Indeed, following MLPA testing individual chromosome arms gave “unclassifiable” results in FFPE material only when the corresponding frozen tissue produced a disomy result or was itself “unclassifiable.” 
Chromosome 3 copy number is important particularly when estimating the survival probability of patients with UM.34 A normal disomic copy number indicates a good prognosis while the loss of one copy of chromosome 3 is a strong indicator of poor prognosis. We incorporate this information into an Accelerated Failure Time Model (AFT) together with clinical and histomorphological features of the UM to generate personalized prognostic curves, which also take into account the patient's age and sex.34 Our data demonstrate that when we excluded FFPE UM tissue samples with either an “unclassifiable” chromosome 3p (28% of cases) or 3q (11% of cases) copy number, the remaining 12 FFPE samples showed 100% concordance with MLPA data from the corresponding frozen tissue, thus generating identical survival curves for these patients. 
In a similar manner, when chromosome arms 1p, 6p, 6q, and 8q were examined individually, the exclusion of UM cases with an “unclassifiable” result in the FFPE sample resulted in the loss of 50%, 11%, 6%, and 28% of cases, respectively. The respective levels of concordance between the remaining paired frozen and FFPE UM samples for chromosome arm copy number were 88%, 75%, 82%, and 85%. 
We showed previously that loss of a single locus on chromosome 3 correlates with reduced patient survival.2 In the current study, the small cohort and the short patient follow-up do not allow meaningful evaluation of the prognostic significance of single locus deletions on chromosome 3 in fixed UM specimens. We hope to address this once we have sufficient data. Furthermore, a comparison of chromosomal abnormalities in irradiated tumors pre- and post-treatment would provide valuable information as to the genetic signature of aggressive UM cells that can survive such therapies. 
In conclusion, when frozen tissue specimens of UM are not available for genetic analysis, FFPE tissue specimens can be used to determine chromosome 3 copy number, albeit accepting that some tumors will be unclassifiable. 
Supplementary Materials
References
Damato BE Dopierala J Klaasen A van Dijk M Sibbring J Coupland S . Multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification of uveal melanoma: correlation with metastatic ceath. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci . 2009; 50:3048–3055. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Damato BE Dopierala JA Coupland SE . Genotypic profiling of 452 choroidal melanomas with multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification. Clin Cancer Res . 2010; 16:6083–6092. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Onken MD Worley LA Person E Char DH Bowcock AM Harbour JW . Loss of heterozygosity of chromosome 3 detected with single nucleotide polymorphisms is superior to monosomy 3 for predicting metastasis in uveal melanoma. Clin Cancer Res . 2007; 13:2923–2927. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Prescher G Bornfeld N Hirche H Horsthemke B Jöckel KH Becher R . Prognostic implications of monosomy 3 in uveal melanoma. Lancet . 1996; 347:1222–1225. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Coupland SE Vorum H Mandal N Proteomics of uveal melanomas suggests HSP-27 as a possible surrogate marker of chromosome 3 loss. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci . 2010; 51:12–20. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Russo A Coupland SE O'Keefe M Damato BE . Choroidal melanoma in a 7-year-old child treated by trans-scleral local resection. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol . 2010; 248:747–749. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Suesskind D Schatz A Schnichels S GDF-15: a novel serum marker for metastases in uveal melanoma patients. [published online ahead of print September 1, 2011]. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol .
Bonaldi L Midena E Filippi B FISH analysis of chromosomes 3 and 6 on fine needle aspiration biopsy samples identifies distinct subgroups of uveal melanomas. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol . 2008; 134:1123–1127. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Häusler T Stang A Anastassiou G Loss of heterozygosity of 1p in uveal melanomas with monosomy 3. Int J Cancer . 2005; 116:909–913. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Kilic E Naus NC van Gils W Concurrent loss of chromosome arm 1p and chromosome 3 predicts a decreased disease-free survival in uveal melanoma patients. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci . 2005; 46:2253–2257. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Kilic E van Gils W Lodder E Clinical and cytogenetic analyses in uveal melanoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci . 2006; 47:3703–3707. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Lake SL Coupland SE Taktak AF Damato BE . Whole-genome microarray detects deletions and loss of heterozygosity of chromosome 3 occurring exclusively in metastasizing uveal melanoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci . 2010; 51:4884–4891. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Brutlag D Schlehuber C Bonner J . Properties of formaldehyde-treated nucleohistone. Biochemistry . 1969; 8:3214–3218. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Feldman MY . Reaction of formaldehyde with nucleotides and ribonucleic acid. Biochim Biophys Acta . 1967; 149:20–34. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Feldman MY . Reactions of nucleic acids and nucleoproteins with formaldehyde. Prog Nucleic Acid Res Mol Biol . 1973; 13:1–49. [PubMed]
Ilyin YV Georgiev GP . Heterogeneity of deoxynucleoprotein particles as evidencec by ultracentrifugation of cesium chloride density gradient. J Mol Biol . 1969; 41:299–303. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Miething F Hering S Hanschke B Dressler J . Effect of fixation to the degradation of nuclear and mitochondrial DNA in different tissues. J Histochem Cytochem . 2006; 54:371–374. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Varshavsky AY Ilyin YV Kadyckov VI Senchenkov EP . Collapse of extended deoxyribonucleoprotein molecules upon increase of the ionic strength of solution. Biochim Biophys Acta . 1971; 246:583–588. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Benavides J Garcia-Pariente C Gelmetti D Effects of fixative type and fixation time on the detection of Maedi Visna virus by PCR and immunohistochemistry in paraffin-embedded ovine lung samples. J Virol Methods . 2006; 137:317–324. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Greer CE Peterson SL Kiviat NB Manos MM . PCR amplification from paraffin-embedded tissues. Effects of fixative and fixation time. Am J Clin Pathol . 1991; 95:117–124. [PubMed]
Okayama N Nishioka M Hazama S The importance of evaluation of DNA amplificability in KRAS mutation testing with dideoxy sequencing using formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded colorectal cancer tissues. Jpn J Clin Oncol . 2011; 41:165–171. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Romero RL Juston AC Ballantyne J Henry BE . The applicability of formalin-fixed and formalin fixed paraffin embedded tissues in forensic DNA analysis. J Forensic Sci . 1997; 42:708–714. [PubMed]
Linton K Hey Y Dibben S Methods comparison for high-resolution transcriptional analysis of archival material on Affymetrix Plus 2.0 and Exon 1.0 microarrays. Biotechniques . 2009; 47:587–596. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Linton KM Hey Y Saunders E Acquisition of biologically relevant gene expression data by Affymetrix microarray analysis of archival formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumours. Br J Cancer . 2008; 98:1403–1414. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Quach N Goodman MF Shibata D . In vitro mutation artifacts after formalin fixation and error prone translesion synthesis during PCR. BMC Clin Pathol . 2004; 4:1. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Takata M . Detection of copy number changes at multiple loci in DNA prepared from formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue by multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification. Methods Mol Biol . 2008; 439:101–108. [PubMed]
van Dijk MC Rombout PD Boots-Sprenger SH Multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification for the detection of chromosomal gains and losses in formalin-fixed tissue. Diagn Mol Pathol . 2005; 14:9–16. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Jeuken JW Cornelissen SJ Vriezen M MS-MLPA: an attractive alternative laboratory assay for robust, reliable, and semiquantitative detection of MGMT promoter hypermethylation in gliomas. Lab Invest . 2007; 87:1055–1065. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Moerland E van Hezik RL van der Aa TC van Beek MW van den Brule AJ . Detection of HER2 amplification in breast carcinomas: comparison of Multiplex Ligation-dependent Probe Amplification (MLPA) and Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization (FISH) combined with automated spot counting. Cell Oncol . 2006; 28:151–159. [PubMed]
Buffart TE van Grieken NC Tijssen M High resolution analysis of DNA copy-number aberrations of chromosomes 8, 13, and 20 in gastric cancers. Virchows Arch . 2009; 455:213–223. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Dopierala J Damato BE Lake SL Taktak AF Coupland SE . Genetic heterogeneity in uveal melanoma assessed by multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci . 2010; 51:4898–4905. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Font RL Croxatto JO, Rao N. Tumors of the eye and ocular adnexa. In: AFIP Atlas of Tumor Pathology . Washington, DC: ARP Press, 2007: 4th series, fasc. 5.
van Dongen JJ Langerak AW Brüggemann M Design and standardization of PCR primers and protocols for detection of clonal immunoglobulin and T-cell receptor gene recombinations in suspect lymphoproliferations: report of the BIOMED-2 Concerted Action BMH4-CT98-3936. Leukemia . 2003; 17:2257–2317. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Damato B Eleuteri A Taktak AF Coupland SE . Estimating prognosis for survival after treatment of choroidal melanoma. Prog Retin Eye Res . 2011; 30:285–295. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Kivela T Harbour WJ Coupland SE . Malignant melanoma of the uvea. In: Edge SB Byrd DB Compton CC , eds. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual , 7th ed. New York: Springer Publishing Co.; 2010: chap 51: 547–559.
Footnotes
 Supported by Fight for Sight, United Kingdom, and Eye Tumour Research Fund of the Royal Liverpool University Hospital, United Kingdom.
Footnotes
  2These authors contributed equally to this manuscript.
Footnotes
 Disclosure: S.L. Lake, None; H. Kalirai, None; J. Dopierała, None; B.E. Damato, None; S.E. Coupland, None
Table 1.
 
Clinicopathologic Features and Tumor Classification
Table 1.
 
Clinicopathologic Features and Tumor Classification
Tumor Sex Age at PM (y) Clinical Features Histopathologic Features TNM Stage† Metastasis Present
Ciliary Body Involvement Extraocular Extension LBD (mm) UH (mm) Cell Type Closed Loops Mitotic Rate*
1 S164 F 58 N N 9.7 3.2 Mx N <1 2a IIA N
2 S165 M 48 N N 16.8 9.5 Mx Y 6 3a IIB N
3 S167 F 67 N N 14.3 16.8 S N 5 4a IIIA N
4 S168 M 81 Y N 19.2 10.3 Mx N 6 4b IIB N
5 S169 F 46 N N 17.6 9.6 S Y 8 3a IIB Y
6 S170 F 81 Y N 16.6 10.2 Mx Y 8 3b IIIA N
7 S173 M 50 N N 18.0 7.2 Mx Y 16 3a IIB N
8 S176 M 47 N N 14.0 7.7 S Y 15 3a IIB N
9 S180 M 72 N N 16.7 7.7 Mx Y 7 3a IIB N
10 S219 F 83 N N 14.1 13.1 S N 11 3a IIB Y
11 S222 M 60 N N 13.9 7.0 S N 2 3a IIB N
12 S007 F 43 N N 14.4 10.2 S N 2 3a IIB N
13 S008 M 63 Y N 21.8 12.2 E Y 10 4b IIIB Y
14 S009 M 77 N N 19.5 14.9 S N 8 4a IIIA Y
15 S011 F 56 N N 15.0 8.0 Mx Y 4 3a IIB N
16 S012 F 71 N N 19.3 6.1 Mx Y 14 4a IIIA N
17 S013 F 37 N N 12.4 10.6 S N 5 3a IIB N
18 S016 F 59 N N 18.8 9.4 Mx Y 4 4a IIIA N
Table 2.
 
Chromosome Arm Copy Number Detected by MLPA
Table 2.
 
Chromosome Arm Copy Number Detected by MLPA
Tumor Sample Type Chromosome Arm
1p 3p 3q 6p 6q 8q
1 S164 Frozen Di L L Di Di G
FFPE U L L Di U U
2 S165 Frozen Di L L Di Di G
FFPE U L L Di G G
3 S167 Frozen U Di Di G Di G
FFPE U Di Di G Di G
4 S168 Frozen L L L Di Di G
FFPE U L L Di Di Di
5 S169 Frozen L L L U Di G
FFPE Di L L U Di G
6 S170 Frozen Di L L Di Di Di
FFPE U L L Di Di Di
7 S173 Frozen Di Di U G L G
FFPE Di Di U G L G
8 S176 Frozen L L L Di L Di
FFPE L L L L L U
9 S180 Frozen L L L Di Di Di
FFPE L L L Di Di U
10 S219 Frozen Di Di Di Di Di Di
FFPE U U U Di Di U
11 S222 Frozen Di Di Di G G Di
FFPE Di U Di G G G
12 S007 Frozen Di Di Di Di Di Di
FFPE Di U Di Di G Di
13 S008 Frozen U L L Di L G
FFPE L L L L L G
14 S009 Frozen L L L Di Di G
FFPE L L L L Di G
15 S011 Frozen Di Di Di Di Di Di
FFPE Di Di Di U Di Di
16 S012 Frozen Di L L Di Di G
FFPE U L L L Di G
17 S013 Frozen Di Di Di G Di Di
FFPE U U Di G G U
18 S016 Frozen Di Di Di G L G
FFPE U U Di G L G
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×