Effect of bone decalcification procedures on DNA in situ hybridization and comparative genomic hybridization. EDTA is highly preferable to a routinely used acid decalcifier

Decalcification is routinely performed for histological studies of bone-containing tissue. Although DNA in situ hybridization (ISH) and comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) have been successfully employed on archival material, little has been reported on the use of these techniques on archival decalcified bony material. In this study we compared the effects of two commonly used decalcifiers, i.e. , one proprietary, acid-based agent (RDO) and one chelating agent (EDTA), in relation to subsequent DNA ISH and CGH to bony tissues (two normal vertebrae, six prostate tumor bone metastases with one sample decalcified by both EDTA and RDO). We found that RDO-decalcified tissue was not suited for DNA ISH in tissue sections with centromere-specific probes, whereas we were able to adequately determine the chromosomal status of EDTA-decalcified material of both control and tumor material. Gel electrophoresis revealed that no DNA could be successfully retrieved from RDO-treated material. Moreover, in contrast to RDO-decalcified tumor material, we detected several chromosomal imbalances in the EDTA-decalcified tumor tissue by CGH analysis. Furthermore, it was possible to determine the DNA ploidy status of EDTA- but not of RDO-decalcified material by DNA flow cytometry. Decalcification of bony samples by EDTA is highly recommended for application in DNA ISH and CGH techniques

Molecular cytogenetic analysis of prostatic adenocarcinomas from screening studies : early cancers may contain aggressive genetic features

No objective parameters have been found so far that can predict the biological behavior of early stages of prostatic cancer, which are encountered frequently nowadays due to surveillance and screening programs. We have applied comparative genomic hybridization to routinely processed, paraffin-embedded radical prostatectomy specimens derived from patients who participated in the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. We defined a panel consisting of 36 early cancer specimens: 13 small (total tumor volume (Tv) < 0.5 ml) carcinomas and 23 intermediate (Tv between 0.5-1.0 ml) tumors. These samples were compared with a set of 16 locally advanced, large (Tv > 2.0 ml) tumor samples, not derived from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. Chromosome arms that frequently (ie, > or = 15%) showed loss in the small tumors included 13q (31%), 6q (23%), and Y (15%), whereas frequent (ie, > or = 15%) gain was seen of 20q (15%). In the intermediate cancers, loss was detected of 8p (35%), 16q (30%), 5q (26%), Y (22%), 6q, and 18q (both 17%). No consistent gains were found i