| Abstract: | Nuclear DNA analysis was performed in 37 human mammary adenocarcinomas in order to elucidate the difficulties and pitfalls connected with the interpretation of DNA histograms obtained using different methodologic approaches. For each tumor, DNA profiles were obtained by means of slide microspectrophotometry on a fine needle aspirate, slide cytophotometry on a 4-micron histologic section and flow cytometry on a suspension prepared from a cube of fresh tissue. When the DNA histograms were interpreted according to criteria usually applied to discriminate low-grade malignant tumors from high-grade malignant tumors, some tumors classified as euploid by one method were classified as aneuploid by another method. The main reasons for this weak correlation seem to be in specimen preparation and in tumor cell representation within the specimen between the methods. Another reason is that slide and flow techniques exhibit different sensitivities for malignancy-associated nuclear DNA changes: minor alterations of the DNA content of the tumor stemlines seem to be more exactly reported by means of the flow technique whereas structural alterations of the nuclear chromatin seem to be more sensitively recorded by means of the slide technique. It is suggested that thorough control of each step of the various DNA analysis procedures and the use of information obtainable by slide and flow techniques taken together may significantly improve the prognostic value of DNA measurements. |
