Analysis of Chromosomal Alterations in Urothelial Carcinoma

  • Donatella Conconi
  • Angela BentivegnaEmail author
Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology book series (MIMB, volume 1655)


Here, we describe the use of complementary techniques applicable to different types of samples to analyze chromosomal alterations in urothelial carcinoma. By a conventional chromosome analysis on fresh biopsies, it is possible to delineate the status of ploidy and rough chromosomal aberrations. The multi-target fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) UroVysion test, for the rapid detection of chromosomal aneusomy of chromosomes 3, 7, and 17 and/or deletion of 9p21 locus, is applicable to urine specimens as well as to formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) specimens and fresh biopsies. Finally, array comparative genomic hybridization (array-CGH) gives the possibility of analyzing the DNA in a single experiment from a biopsy of the tumor but also from FFPE specimens; this technique is able to detect alterations at the genome level not excluding any chromosome.

Key words

Urothelial carcinoma Chromosome aberrations Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) UroVysion test Comparative Genomic Hybridization (Array-CGH) DNA copy number variations Urine specimens Fresh biopsies Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) specimens 



The authors want to gratefully acknowledge Professor Leda Dalprà for her help in revising the manuscript. This work was supported by Gianluca Strada Association for research and treatment of urological cancer.


  1. 1.
    Fadl-Elmula I (2005) Chromosomal changes in uroepithelial carcinomas. Cell Chromosome 4:1CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Höglund M, Säll T, Heim S et al (2001) Identification of cytogenetic subgroups and karyotypic pathways in transitional cell carcinoma. Cancer Res 61:8241–8246PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sokolova IA, Halling KC, Jenkins RB et al (2000) The development of a multitarget, multicolor fluorescence in situ hybridization assay for the detection of urothelial carcinoma in urine. J Mol Diagn 2:116–123CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tsai YC, Nichols PW, Hiti AL et al (1990) Allelic losses of chromosomes 9, 11, and 17 in human bladder cancer. Cancer Res 50:44–47PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sandberg AA, Berger CS (1994) Review of chromosome studies in urological tumors. Ii. Cytogenetics and molecular genetics of bladder cancer. J Urol 151:545–560CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Veltman JA, Fridlyand J, Pejavar S et al (2003) Array-based comparative genomic hybridization for genome-wide screening of DNA copy number in bladder tumors. Cancer Res 63:2872–2880PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hurst CD, Fiegler H, Carr P et al (2004) High-resolution analysis of genomic copy number alterations in bladder cancer by microarray-based comparative genomic hybridization. Oncogene 23:2250–2263CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Blaveri E, Brewer JL, Roydasgupta R et al (2005) Bladder cancer stage and outcome by array-based comparative genomic hybridization. Clin Cancer Res 11:7012–7022CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Panzeri E, Conconi D, Antolini L et al (2011) Chromosomal aberrations in bladder cancer: fresh versus formalin fixed paraffin embedded tissue and targeted fish versus wide microarray-based CGH analysis. PLoS ONE 6(9):e24237CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Conconi D, Redaelli S, Bovo G et al (2016) Unexpected frequency of genomic alterations in histologically normal colonic tissue from colon cancer patients. Tumour Biol. doi: 10.1007/s13277-016-5181-0

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media LLC 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Medicine and SurgeryUniversity of Milano-BicoccaMonza (MB)Italy

Personalised recommendations