Some difficult choices in cytogenetics.
In making a selection of features of these technologies, it is inevitable that some will be omitted that other cytogeneticists feel should have been included. The author could probably justifiably be accused of bias. However, based on experience in a laboratory that has used almost every type of assay mentioned in this chapter, the following opinions are offered about their current value in providing a routine malignancy cytogenetics service: 1. The foundation is still a conventional cytogenetic study, preferably with the use of an automated karyotyping system. 2. Added to this, there should be the capability of performing FISH studies using chromosome paints and gene-specific probes. Cytogenetics and FISH form a powerful partnership when backed by experienced cytogeneticists. MFISH or SKY are also useful if the laboratory can afford the considerable extra expense. CGH and fibre FISH are generally better suited to research projects, and at present have few applications in a routine diagnostics service. 3. At present, molecular methods such as RT-PCR mostly tend to produce results that have a greater need of confirmation by other techniques before they can be used for clinical management.
Swansbury
John
J
Academic Haematology and Cytogenetics, The Royal Marsden NHS Trust, The Institute of Cancer Research, Surrey, UK.
D003582:Cytogenetics; D006801:Humans