Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 4, 2026
Identification and Isolation of Slow-Dividing Cells in Human Glioblastoma Using Carboxy Fluorescein Succinimidyl Ester CFSE
Published on: April 29, 2012
MRI and CT Identify Isocitrate Dehydrogenase (IDH)-Mutant Lower-Grade Gliomas Misclassified to 1p/19q Codeletion
Sohil H Patel1, Prem P Batchala1, E Kelly S Mrachek1
1From the Department of Radiology and Medical Imaging (S.H.P., P.P.B., T.J.D.), Department of Pathology, Divisions of Neuropathology and Molecular Diagnostics (E.K.S.M., M.B.S.L., E.S.W.), Department of Neurology, Division of Neuro-Oncology (D.S., C.E.F.), and Department of Public Health Sciences (J.T.P.), University of Virginia Health System, PO Box 800170, Charlottesville, VA 22908; and Department of Radiology and Neurosurgery, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, NY (R.J.).
Abstract:
Background Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) is a standard method for 1p/19q codeletion testing in diffuse gliomas but occasionally renders erroneous results. Purpose To determine whether MRI/CT analysis identifies isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH)-mutant gliomas misassigned to 1p/19q codeletion status with FISH. Materials and Methods Data in patients with IDH-mutant lower-grade gliomas (World Health Organization grade II/III) and 1p/19q codeletion status determined with FISH that were accrued from January 1, 2010 to October 1, 2017, were included in this retrospective study. Two neuroradiologist readers analyzed the pre-resection MRI findings (and CT findings, when available) to predict 1p/19q status (codeleted or noncodeleted) and provided a prediction confidence score (1 = low, 2 = moderate, 3 = high). Percentage concordance between the consensus neuroradiologist 1p/19q prediction and the FISH result was calculated. For gliomas where (a) consensus neuroradiologist 1p/19q prediction differed from the FISH result and (b) consensus neuroradiologist confidence score was 2 or greater, further 1p/19q testing was performed with chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA). Nine control specimens were randomly chosen from the remaining study sample for CMA. Percentage concordance between FISH and CMA among the CMA-tested cases was calculated. Results A total of 112 patients (median age, 38 years [interquartile range, 31-51 years]; 57 men) were evaluated (112 gliomas). Percentage concordance between the consensus neuroradiologist 1p/19q prediction and the FISH result was 84.8% (95 of 112; 95% confidence interval: 76.8%, 90.9%). Among the 17 neuroradiologist-FISH discordances, there were nine gliomas associated with a consensus neuroradiologist confidence score of 2 or greater. In six (66.7%) of these nine gliomas, the 1p/19q codeletion status as determined with CMA disagreed with the FISH result and agreed with the consensus neuroradiologist prediction. For the nine control specimens, there was 100% agreement between CMA and FISH for 1p/19q determination. Conclusion MRI and CT analysis can identify diffuse gliomas misassigned to 1p/19q codeletion status with fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). Further molecular testing should be considered for gliomas with discordant neuroimaging and FISH results. © RSNA, 2019 Online supplemental material is available for this article.
