Annals of Laboratory Medicine

Korean Society for Laboratory Medicine (대한진단검사의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Factors Influencing Fluorescence-activated Cell Sorting for Multiple Myeloma Fluorescence in situ Hybridization: Real-world Experience

  • Jaeguk Choi (Department of Laboratory Medicine, Severance Hospital) ;
  • Kyunghee Yu (Department of Laboratory Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine) ;
  • Seung-Tae Lee (Department of Laboratory Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine) ;
  • Saeam Shin (Department of Laboratory Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine) ;
  • Jong Rak Choi (Department of Laboratory Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine)
  • Received : 2024.10.28
  • Accepted : 2025.03.03
  • Published : 2025.05.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background: FISH is the standard method for detecting cytogenetic abnormalities (CAs) in patients with multiple myeloma, and pre-enrichment of plasma cells is recommended to increase detection rates. However, optimal strategies to ensure sufficient plasma cell retrieval when standard enrichment techniques fail remain underexplored. We investigated factors influencing the success of fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS) and assessed the use of direct FISH in cases in which FACS failed. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 457 bone marrow samples submitted for FISH between November 2016 and May 2022. FACS was considered successful when plasma cells (CD38+ and CD138+ cells) constituted >1% of the total number of cells. Direct FISH was performed for samples with FACS failure. Results: FACS was successful in 70.9% of cases and had a high positivity rate (94.8%). Shorter sample transfer times significantly improved FACS success, with a 77.1% success rate for transfer times <2 hrs, compared with 67.8% for longer times (P=0.0388). Plasma cell percentage was a strong determinant of FACS success, with a median of 31.2% in successful cases versus 8.5% in failures (P<0.0001). Even when FACS failed, direct FISH detected CAs in 43.6% of cases. Conclusions: Plasma cell percentage and sample transfer time are critical factors influencing FACS success. While FACS-FISH demonstrates superior sensitivity in detecting CAs, direct FISH serves as a valuable alternative when FACS fails. These findings highlight the importance of optimizing sample handling and FISH protocols for accurate cytogenetic analysis of multiple myeloma.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

We are grateful for the advice and assistance from Professor Chang-Gun Lee.

References

  1. Cowan AJ, Green DJ, Kwok M, Lee S, Coffey DG, Holmberg LA, et al. Diagnosis and Management of Multiple Myeloma: A Review. JAMA 2022; 327:464–77. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2022.0003
  2. Furukawa Y, Kikuchi J. Molecular pathogenesis of multiple myeloma. Int J Clin Oncol 2015;20:413–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10147-015-0837-0
  3. Cardona-Benavides IJ, de Ramón C, Gutiérrez NC. Genetic Abnormalities in Multiple Myeloma: Prognostic and Therapeutic Implications. Cells 2021;10:336. https://doi.org/10.3390/cells10020336
  4. Abdallah N, Rajkumar SV, Greipp P, Kapoor P, Gertz MA, Dispenzieri A, et al. Cytogenetic abnormalities in multiple myeloma: association with disease characteristics and treatment response. Blood Cancer J 2020;10: 82. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41408-020-00348-5
  5. Saxe D, Seo EJ, Bergeron MB, Han JY. Recent advances in cytogenetic characterization of multiple myeloma. Int J Lab Hematol 2019;41:5–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijlh.12882
  6. Kim HY, Yoo IY, Lim DJ, Kim HJ, Kim SH, Yoon SE, et al. Clinical Utility of Next-Generation Flow-Based Minimal Residual Disease Assessment in Patients with Multiple Myeloma. Ann Lab Med 2022;42:558–65. https://doi.org/10.3343/alm.2022.42.5.558
  7. Park M, Lim J, Ahn A, Oh EJ, Song J, Kim KH, et al. Current Status of Flow Cytometric Immunophenotyping of Hematolymphoid Neoplasms in Korea. Ann Lab Med 2024;44:222–34. https://doi.org/10.3343/alm.2023.0298
  8. Park SS, Kim NY, Lim JY, Lee JY, Yun S, Chung YJ, et al. Clinical Implications of Circulating Tumor DNA in Multiple Myeloma and Its Precursor Diseases. Ann Lab Med 2025. doi:10.3343/alm.2024.0424.
  9. Agarwal A, Ghobrial IM. Monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance and smoldering multiple myeloma: a review of the current understanding of epidemiology, biology, risk stratification, and management of myeloma precursor disease. Clin Cancer Res 2013;19:985–94. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-12-2922
  10. Sonneveld P, Avet-Loiseau H, Lonial S, Usmani S, Siegel D, Anderson KC, et al. Treatment of multiple myeloma with high-risk cytogenetics: a consensus of the International Myeloma Working Group. Blood 2016;127: 2955–62. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2016-01-631200
  11. Ross FM, Avet-Loiseau H, Ameye G, Gutiérrez NC, Liebisch P, O'Connor S, et al. Report from the European Myeloma Network on interphase FISH in multiple myeloma and related disorders. Haematologica 2012;97: 1272–7. https://doi.org/10.3324/haematol.2011.056176
  12. Hartmann L, Biggerstaff JS, Chapman DB, Scott JM, Johnson KR, Ghirardelli KM, et al. Detection of genomic abnormalities in multiple myeloma: the application of FISH analysis in combination with various plasma cell enrichment techniques. Am J Clin Pathol 2011;136:712–20. https://doi.org/10.1309/AJCPF7NFLW8UAJEP
  13. Ha J, Cho H, Lee TG, Shin S, Chung H, Jang JE, et al. Cytogenetic testing by fluorescence in situ hybridization is improved by plasma cell sorting in multiple myeloma. Sci Rep 2022;12:8287. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-11676-w
  14. Fonseca R, Bergsagel PL, Drach J, Shaughnessy J, Gutierrez N, Stewart AK, et al. International Myeloma Working Group molecular classification of multiple myeloma: spotlight review. Leukemia 2009;23:2210–21. https://doi.org/10.1038/leu.2009.174
  15. Fonseca R, Barlogie B, Bataille R, Bastard C, Bergsagel PL, Chesi M, et al. Genetics and cytogenetics of multiple myeloma: a workshop report. Cancer Res 2004;64:1546–58. https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-03-2876
  16. Wolff DJ, Bagg A, Cooley LD, Dewald GW, Hirsch BA, Jacky PB, et al. Guidance for fluorescence in situ hybridization testing in hematologic disorders. J Mol Diagn 2007;9:134–43. https://doi.org/10.2353/jmoldx.2007.060128
  17. LS TBaF. Using multivariate statistics. 5th ed. Boston, PA: Allyn & Bacon/Pearson Education, 2007.
  18. Akinwande MO DH, Samson, A. Variance inflation factor: as a condition for the inclusion of suppressor variable(s) in regression analysis. Open J Stat 2015;5:754–67. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojs.2015.57075
  19. Rajkumar SV. Multiple myeloma: 2020 update on diagnosis, risk-stratification and management. Am J Hematol 2020;95:548–67. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajh.25791
  20. Schürch CM, Rasche L, Frauenfeld L, Weinhold N, Fend F. A review on tumor heterogeneity and evolution in multiple myeloma: pathological, radiological, molecular genetics, and clinical integration. Virchows Arch 2020;476:337–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-019-02725-3
  21. Kumar SK, Mikhael JR, Buadi FK, Dingli D, Dispenzieri A, Fonseca R, et al. Management of newly diagnosed symptomatic multiple myeloma: updated Mayo Stratification of Myeloma and Risk-Adapted Therapy (mSMART) consensus guidelines. Mayo Clin Proc 2009;84:1095–110. https://doi.org/10.4065/mcp.2009.0603
  22. Kyle RA, Rajkumar SV. Epidemiology of the plasma-cell disorders. Best Pract Res Clin Haematol 2007;20:637–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beha.2007.08.001
  23. Smith D, Stephenson C, Percy L, Lach A, Chatters S, Kempski H, et al. Cohort analysis of FISH testing of CD138(+) cells in relapsed multiple myeloma: implications for prognosis and choice of therapy. Br J Haematol 2015;171:881-3. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjh.13446
  24. Woroniecka R. FISH diagnostics in plasma cell myeloma: recommendations and own experience. Acta Haematologica Polonica 2021;52:390–6. https://doi.org/10.5603/AHP.2021.0073
  25. Fonseca R, Blood E, Rue M, Harrington D, Oken MM, Kyle RA, et al. Clinical and biologic implications of recurrent genomic aberrations in myeloma. Blood 2003;101:4569–75. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2002-10-3017
  26. Sawyer JR. The prognostic significance of cytogenetics and molecular profiling in multiple myeloma. Cancer Genet 2011;204:3–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cancergencyto.2010.11.002
  27. Rothman R, Voskoboinik N, Herishanu Y, Orr-Urtreger A, Naparstek E, Trestman S. Prognostic Significance of the FISH Panel for Patients with Multiple Myeloma. Blood 2012;120:5001. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood.V120.21.5001.5001