March 2012
Volume 53, Issue 14
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   March 2012
Fluorescence in-situ Hybridization vs Multiplex Ligation-dependent Probe Amplification for Uveal Melanoma Prognostication: in-vivo Comparative Results
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Raffaele Parrozzani
    GB Bietti Eye Foundation, IRCCS, Roma, Italy
  • Laura Bonaldi
    Immunology and Molecular Oncology, Istituto Oncologico Veneto, IRCCS, Padova, Italy
  • Chiara Menin
    Immunology and Molecular Oncology, Istituto Oncologico Veneto, IRCCS, Padova, Italy
  • Elisabetta Pilotto
    Ophthalmology, University of Padova, Padova, Italy
  • Edoardo Midena
    GB Bietti Eye Foundation, IRCCS, Roma, Italy
    Ophthalmology, University of Padova, Padova, Italy
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  Raffaele Parrozzani, None; Laura Bonaldi, None; Chiara Menin, None; Elisabetta Pilotto, None; Edoardo Midena, None
  • Footnotes
    Support  None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science March 2012, Vol.53, 3398. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Raffaele Parrozzani, Laura Bonaldi, Chiara Menin, Elisabetta Pilotto, Edoardo Midena; Fluorescence in-situ Hybridization vs Multiplex Ligation-dependent Probe Amplification for Uveal Melanoma Prognostication: in-vivo Comparative Results. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2012;53(14):3398.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose: : To compare fluorescence in-situ hybridization (FISH) and multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA) for uveal melanoma prognostication.

Methods: : Twenty-four patients affected by posterior uveal melanoma and scheduled for I125 brachytherapy were included in this study. Patients underwent in-vivo 25-G transcleral FNAB just before applying the radioactive plaque. Sampled material underwent both FISH and MLPA analysis using standard procedures. Follow-up was longer than 24 months.

Results: : Follow-up was 31±8 months (range, 25-42 months). FISH analysis revealed monosomy 3 in twelve cases (50%). MLPA revealed monosomy 3 in thirteen cases (54%) and a 3p14-q29 deletion in one case (4%) (classified as monosomy 3 by FISH). Nine patients (41%) developed metastatic disease during follow-up, including the case showing monosomy 3 only by MLPA. Patient with partial chromosome 3 deletion is still alive without metastases. Prediction of metastases based on monosomy 3 was higher for MLPA compared with FISH (p=0.008 vs p=0.035).

Conclusions: : MLPA has a higher predictive value compared than FISH in UM prognostication based on monosomy 3 alone. The biological and prognostic value of partial chromosome 3 deletion, as well as others subtle chromosomes alterations or complex MLPA results, remains unclear.

Keywords: tumors • melanoma • oncology 
×
×

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.

×