4.1 Article

Copy number gain in recurrent anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) rearrangement-lung adenocarcinoma in the pleural effusion

期刊

DIAGNOSTIC CYTOPATHOLOGY
卷 46, 期 9, 页码 744-747

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/dc.23936

关键词

ALK rearrangement; copy number gain; lung cancer; pleural effusion; recurrence

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Copy number gain (CNG), which includes both numerical and structural chromosomal abnormalities, has been investigated in many human cancers. We report a case of recurrence of anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) rearrangement-positive lung adenocarcinoma with increased cellular pleomorphism and ALK copy number in pleural effusion cytology, and retrospectively compared the recurrent tumor with the primary tumor in terms of cytological features, immunohistochemistry (IHC) and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). The patient was a woman in her 50s who was found to have a 20 x 20 mm sized mass in the lung by chest computed tomography (CT), and was diagnosed with ALK rearrangement-positive lung adenocarcinoma. The patient was administered ALK inhibitors, such as alectinib, however 4 years later dissemination to the pleural effusion was detected. The smear was of high cellularity, and a predominant population of large-sized pleomorphic adenocarcinoma cells with prominent nucleoli was observed. On FISH and IHC using cell block material, ALK rearrangement and ALK protein expression were identified again, along with recurrent ALK adenocarcinoma cells, which were observed to have an increased ALK copy number compared with the primary ALK adenocarcinoma cells. On the other hand, there was no discrepancy in the expression of various biomarkers between the primary and corresponding recurrent tumor. The present case showed a marked difference in cytological findings and CNG between the primary and recurrent tumor, indicating that DNA aneuploidy may be related to morphological change such as transformation to bizarre pleomorphic cells in patients receiving alectinib treatment.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据