Table 1.
Comparison between FISH diagnoses and FFPE-TLC results.
| MYC | FFPE-TLC | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MYC-IGH | MYC-IGL | MYC-IGK | MYC-others | MYC negative | ||
| Control | Negative (n = 20) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 20 |
| BCL2 | BCL2-IGH | BCL2-IGL | BCL2-IGK | BCL2-others | BCL2 negative | |
| Negative (n = 20) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 20 | |
| BCL6 | BCL6-IGH | BCL6-IGL | BCL6-IGK | BCL6-others | BCL6 negative | |
| Negative (n = 20) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 20 | |
| MYC | FFPE-TLC | |||||
| MYC-IGH | MYC-IGL | MYC-IGK | MYC-others | MYC negative | ||
| FISH | Positive (n = 49) | 30 | 4 | 1 | 12 | 2 |
| Negative (n = 75) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 73 | |
| Inconclusive (n = 1) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | |
| No data (n = 24) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 24 | |
| BCL2 | FFPE-TLC | |||||
| BCL2-IGH | BCL2-IGL | BCL2-IGK | BCL2-others | BCL2 negative | ||
| FISH | Positive (n = 31) | 30 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Negative (n = 63) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 63 | |
| Inconclusive (n = 3) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | |
| No data (n = 52) | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 49 | |
| BCL6 | FFPE-TLC | |||||
| BCL6-IGH | BCL6-IGL | BCL6-IGK | BCL6-others | BCL6 negative | ||
| FISH | Positive (n = 29) | 12 | 3 | 0 | 14 | 0 |
| Negative (n = 61) | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 58 | |
| Inconclusive (n = 3) | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | |
| No data (n = 56) | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 50 | |
Quantitative overview of samples with FISH diagnosis horizontally and FFPE-TLC calls (using PLIER) vertically. Note that ‘inconclusive’ FISH results refer to samples carrying an unusual or uneven number of FISH signals.