Concordance of Fluorescence In-Situ Hybridization, Whole-Exome Sequencing and Chromosomal Microarray for Evaluating High-Risk Molecular Features in Meningiomas

Clicks: 1
ID: 319274
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal

Ranked #86 of 104 articles by views in Neuro-Oncology Advances

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Abstract Background Meningiomas are the most common primary intracranial tumors, classified into three WHO grades based on histologic and/or molecular criteria. cIMPACT-NOW Update 8 underscores the increasing importance of molecular testing in grading and risk stratification, noting that morphologically WHO grade 1 tumors with concurrent 1p and 22q losses demonstrate clinical behavior comparable to WHO grade 2 meningiomas. This study aimed to assess the concordance of fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA), and whole-exome sequencing (WES) in defining the molecular risk profile of meningiomas. Methods A total of 113 meningiomas were analyzed by WHO grade to assess the concordance of FISH and WES with CMA in detecting CDKN2A homozygous deletion and chromosomal arm losses involving 1p, 10q, 14q, and 22q. Results FISH demonstrated a lower concordance with CMA compared to WES. Some discrepancies likely reflect inherent technical limitations of probe-based assays. Nonetheless, FISH remains widely used as a first-line, and in some settings the only available, method—particularly in resource-limited environments such as low- and middle-income countries. Conclusion Our findings suggest that FISH can provide clinically informative molecular risk assessment in select contexts where more comprehensive platforms are unavailable. However, due to discordance in detecting key copy number alterations, results should be interpreted cautiously. By contrast, CMA and WES offer more reliable alteration detection, making them the preferred platforms for precise molecular risk stratification and prognostication. Refining FISH probe design and establishing optimal thresholds for defining chromosomal arm losses may mitigate some discrepancies, although further validation is needed.
Reference Key
openalex_W7166882897 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Brenndan Crumley, Emilie Russler-Germain, Sonika Dahiya
Journal Neuro-Oncology Advances
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/noajnl/vdag169
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/noajnl/vdag169
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.