Aquila, Marie L. Dell’

Abstract Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) probes and analysis methods for B-cell Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL) vary extensively among cytogenetic laboratories. This is not unexpected, as neither national nor international standards have been established for most FISH studies. Lack of standardization is problematic when data collected at multiple institutions are used for clinical correlative studies. To circumvent such problems, the five participating laboratories in the CLL Research Consortium (CRC) designed and executed a joint CLL FISH validation study. Methods: Initially a survey was sent to assess equipment, methods and experience with FISH for CLL. In a pilot study to compare laboratory performance in scoring patient samples, slides from ten patients were prepared and sent to each participating lab to be hybridized with five probe sets (= 50 hybridizations) and analyzed according to their local protocol. In a second pilot study, slides from two patient samples and identical probe sets were sent to the participating labs where hybridization and analysis were carried out according to their local protocol. Next, technologists and directors from all participating labs attended a workshop where technologists working in pairs scored nuclei together, techniques and scoring criteria were established, and consensus reached on other concerns. In a proficiency test nine months after the workshop, slides from two patient samples (10 hybridizations) were hybridized and scored according to each lab’s protocol and results shared using a common reporting form. Results: Survey results indicated that four labs used the same commercially available CLL FISH panel, and one used a combination of probes from the same vendor plus several home-brew probes. Each lab scored between 100 and 200 nuclei per hybridization site, and each independently set normal cutoff values. The FISH panel included probes to detect 11q, 13q, and 17p deletions, trisomy 12, and IGH gene rearrangement. One lab included probes to detect 6q deletion. In the first pilot study each lab used their hybridization methods, probe sets, and scoring criteria. Differences among labs were observed due to variations in probe strategy, reporting of anomalies, and perhaps most important, scoring criteria. Probe strategy differences resulted in variable reporting of 11q- vs monosomy 11 and 12q duplication vs trisomy 12. Some participants reported 13q-x1 and 13q-x2 as subclones and some reported only 13q-. One lab reported an IGH rearrangement whereas the others scored IGH as normal. In the second pilot study each lab used the same methods and probe sets to facilitate comparison of scoring by the technologists. All labs correctly identified the abnormalities, and there were no false positive results. Minor scoring differences were attributed to variation in scoring criteria or inexperience with an unfamiliar FISH probe strategy. The proficiency test that followed the workshop demonstrated 100% concordance in identification of abnormalities. Inter-lab scoring was much improved compared to the first pilot study. The only exceptions were a 13q- range of 72–90% in one case, and a 17p- range of 38–67% in another case. Conclusion: The pilot studies identified a need to develop common scoring criteria. The subsequent workshop and proficiency test demonstrated that the collaborative effort resulted in more standardized scoring among the CRC laboratories. Our collaborative study emphasizes the need to establish rigorous standards and guidelines for FISH procedures and scoring criteria. Standardization of FISH methods among participating laboratories will enhance the confidence in FISH studies for both clinical applications and cooperative intergroup clinical research.

Abstract Abstract 1614 Poster Board I-640 Background Cytogenetic abnormalities in B-cell CLL are important prognostic indicators for predicting disease progression and treatment response. Until recently, only interphase cytogenetics has been readily applicable to clinical use in CLL due to the inability of traditional mitogens to promote effective metaphase cytogenetic identification. Recently, cytokine or CpG oligonucleotide stimulation has been utilized to promote efficient metaphase analysis. One concern with this approach is the actual clonality and reproducibility of such clones when examined by different cytogenetic laboratories. The CLL Research Consortium (CRC) conducted a prospective trial to test (1) whether CpG would enhance detection of abnormal clones and (2) whether the CRC cytogenetic laboratories would achieve similar results when testing the same patient samples. Methods Initially, one laboratory compared stimulation of CLL cells using CpG versus pokeweed mitogen (PWM) + 12-O-tetradecanoyl-phorbol-13-acetate (TPA) in the same samples. To test the reproducibility of CpG stimulation, fresh blood samples from 1 normal control and 12 CLL patients were collected at one site and distributed (blinded to phenotype and prior cytogenetic results) to 5 CRC cytogenetic laboratories where they were cultured for 3 days using CpG stimulation, harvested, banded and analyzed utilizing standard laboratory procedures. When possible, each laboratory analyzed 20 metaphases per case. Interphase FISH analysis for CLL (including probes for chromosomes 6q, 11q, 12, 13q, 17p, and IGH/CCND1) was also done on each sample. Results In the PWM+TPA versus CpG comparison, more cases were found to have clonal abnormalities with CpG stimulation (147 of 229, 64%) than with PWM+TPA (110 of 229, 48%; P=0.0005). All clonal abnormalities detected in the PWM+TPA cultures were also observed in the CpG cultures. In the 5-laboratory CpG comparison, the results were compiled and compared to the concurrent FISH results. The CpG karyotypes were concordant with the FISH results. The control case had a normal CpG-stimulated karyotype in all 5 laboratories. Three cases exhibited a complex karyotype; one of these also exhibited 11q-, one had 17p-, and one had neither. The cytogenetic descriptions varied modestly among labs, but all identified the complex clones. Every case including the control exhibited some nonclonal abnormal cells, but no pattern was detected among the 5 labs. When an abnormal clone was found by only 1 or 2 labs, it was present in only a very small number of cells. A small 13q- clone was observed in 2 cases in 1 and 2 labs (3 of 20 and 5 of 50 cells, respectively), and was confirmed by interphase FISH. A single lab found 2 of 30 cells with a t(12;15) in one case. Conclusions Abnormal clones in CLL are more readily detected with CpG stimulation than with traditional B-cell mitogens. The clonal abnormalities revealed by CpG stimulation are consistent with the “gold standard” interphase FISH results, and are reproducible among different cytogenetic laboratories. We have no evidence that CpG oligonucleotides create new clonal B-cell populations in vitro during 3 days of cell culture. CpG stimulation in vitro reveals clonal cytogenetic abnormalities and complexity in CLL that should be evaluated as potential independent prognostic parameters. Disclosures Kay: Biogenc-Idec, Celgene, Genentech, genmab: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech, Celgene, Hospira, Polyphenon Pharma, Sanofi-Aventis: Research Funding.