Open Access Research article

Identification of FISH biomarkers to detect chromosome abnormalities associated with prostate adenocarcinoma in tumour and field effect environment

Ying Zhang1, Thomas Perez1, Beth Blondin1, Jing Du1, Ping Liu1, Diana Escarzaga2, John S Coon2, Larry E Morrison1 and Katerina Pestova1*

Author Affiliations

1 Abbott Molecular, Inc, 1300 East Touhy Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60018, USA

2 Department of Pathology, Rush University Medical Center, 1750 West Harrison Street, Chicago, IL 60612, USA

For all author emails, please log on.

BMC Cancer 2014, 14:129  doi:10.1186/1471-2407-14-129

Published: 25 February 2014



To reduce sampling error associated with cancer detection in prostate needle biopsies, we explored the possibility of using fluorescence in situ hybridisation (FISH) to detect chromosomal abnormalities in the histologically benign prostate tissue from patients with adenocarcinoma of prostate.


Tumour specimens from 33 radical prostatectomy (RP) cases, histologically benign tissue from 17 of the 33 RP cases, and 26 benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) control cases were evaluated with Locus Specific Identifier (LSI) probes MYC (8q24), LPL (8p21.22), and PTEN (10q23), as well as with centromere enumerator probes CEP8, CEP10, and CEP7. A distribution of FISH signals in the tumour and histologically benign adjacent tissue was compared to that in BPH specimens using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis.


The combination of MYC gain, CEP8 Abnormal, PTEN loss or chromosome 7 aneusomy was positive in the tumour area of all of the 33 specimens from patients with adenocarcinomas, and in 88% of adjacent histologically benign regions (15 out of 17) but in only 15% (4 out of 26) of the benign prostatic hyperplasia control specimens.


A panel of FISH markers may allow detection of genomic abnormalities that associate with adenocarcinoma in the field adjacent to and surrounding the tumour, and thus could potentially indicate the presence of cancer in the specimen even if the cancer focus itself was missed by biopsy and histology review.

Prostate cancer; Genomic abnormalities; Diagnosis; Field effect; Fish; Fluorescence in situ hybridisation