Flow cytometric DNA ploidy analysis of soft tissue sarcomas. A comparative study of preoperative fine needle aspirates and postoperative fresh tissues and archival material

Mårten Fernö, Bo Baldetorp, Måns Åkerman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Flow cytometric (FCM) DNA ploidy measurements on frozen fresh samples of soft tissue sarcomas were compared with the corresponding analyses on preoperative fine needle aspirates and postoperative formalin-fixed archival tissues from the same tumors. A concordance in ploidy status (diploid versus non-diploid) was obtained for 63% of the fresh tissue-fine needle aspiration (FNA) sample comparisons and for 85% of the fresh tissue-archival material comparisons. The majority of discordances in the fresh tissue-FNA sample comparisons could be explained by FNA sampling errors. In the remaining discordant cases (3 of 27 FNA sample comparisons and 6 of 40 archival material comparisons), sampling errors could not explain the differences in ploidy status. The discordant cases were evenly distributed among the different sampling methods. Method reproducibility was not responsible for the differences in ploidy determinations; tumor heterogeneity may be an explanation for the discrepancies. This study showed that archival soft tissue sarcoma samples are as well suited for DNA ploidy analysis as are fresh frozen tissues.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)251-258
JournalAnalytical and Quantitative Cytology and Histology
Volume12
Issue number4
Publication statusPublished - 1990

Bibliographical note

The information about affiliations in this record was updated in December 2015.
The record was previously connected to the following departments: Oncology, MV (013035000), Pathology, (Lund) (013030000)

Subject classification (UKÄ)

  • Cancer and Oncology

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Flow cytometric DNA ploidy analysis of soft tissue sarcomas. A comparative study of preoperative fine needle aspirates and postoperative fresh tissues and archival material'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this