25 research outputs found

    Analysis of genetic copy number changes in cervical disease progression

    Get PDF
    <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Cervical dysplasia and tumorigenesis have been linked with numerous chromosomal aberrations. The goal of this study was to evaluate 35 genomic regions associated with cervical disease and to select those which were found to have the highest frequency of aberration for use as probes in fluorescent in-situ hybridization.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The frequency of gains and losses using fluorescence in-situ hybridization were assessed in these 35 regions on 30 paraffin-embedded cervical biopsy specimens. Based on this assessment, 6 candidate fluorescently labeled probes (8q24, Xp22, 20q13, 3p14, 3q26, CEP15) were selected for additional testing on a set of 106 cervical biopsy specimens diagnosed as Normal, CIN1, CIN2, CIN3, and SCC. The data were analyzed on the basis of signal mean, % change of signal mean between histological categories, and % positivity.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The study revealed that the chromosomal regions with the highest frequency of copy number gains and highest combined sensitivity and specificity in high-grade cervical disease were 8q24 and 3q26. The cytological application of these two probes was then evaluated on 118 ThinPrep™ samples diagnosed as Normal, ASCUS, LSIL, HSIL and Cancer to determine utility as a tool for less invasive screening. Using gains of either 8q24 or 3q26 as a positivity criterion yielded specificity (Normal +LSIL+ASCUS) of 81.0% and sensitivity (HSIL+Cancer) of 92.3% based on a threshold of 4 positive cells.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The application of a FISH assay comprised of chromosomal probes 8q24 and 3q26 to cervical cytology specimens confirms the positive correlation between increasing dysplasia and copy gains and shows promise as a marker in cervical disease progression.</p

    Practice Patterns in Urinary Cytopathology Prior to the Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology

    Full text link
    Context.— The Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology has been disseminated since its inception in 2013; however, the daily practice patterns of urinary tract cytopathology are not well known. Objective.— To assess urinary tract cytopathology practice patterns across a variety of pathology laboratories to aid in the implementation and future update of the Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology. Design.— A questionnaire was designed to gather information about urinary tract cytopathology practices and mailed in July 2014 to 2116 laboratories participating in the College of American Pathologists interlaboratory comparison program. The participating laboratories' answers were summarized. Results.— Of the 879 of 2116 laboratories (41%) that participated, 745 (84.8%) reported processing urinary tract specimens in house. The laboratories reported processing various specimen types: voided urine, 735 of 738 (99.6%); bladder washing/barbotage, 639 of 738 (86.6%); and catheterized urine specimens, 653 of 738 (88.5%). Some laboratories used multiple preparation methods, but the most commonly used preparation techniques for urinary tract specimens were ThinPrep (57.4%) and Cytospin (45.5%). Eighty-eight of 197 laboratories (44.7%) reported preparing a cell block, but with a low frequency. Adequacy criteria were used by 295 of 707 laboratories (41.7%) for voided urine, and 244 of 707 (34.5%) assessed adequacy for bladder washing/barbotage. More than 95% of the laboratories reported the use of general categories: negative, atypical, suspicious, and positive. Polyomavirus was classified as negative in 408 of 642 laboratories (63.6%) and atypical in 189 of 642 (29.4%). One hundred twenty-eight of 708 laboratories (18.1%) performed ancillary testing, and of these, 102 of 122 (83.6%) reported performing UroVysion. Conclusions.— Most laboratories use the ThinPrep method followed by the Cytospin technique; therefore, the criteria published in The Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology, based mostly on ThinPrep and SurePath, should be validated for Cytospin, and relevant information should be included in the revised edition of The Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology. </jats:sec

    Performance Characteristics of Adenoid Cystic Carcinoma of the Salivary Glands in Fine-Needle Aspirates Results From the College of American Pathologists Nongynecologic Cytology Program

    No full text
    Context.-Although the cytomorphology of adenoid cystic carcinoma (ACC) has been well described, the accuracy of this diagnosis in fine-needle aspirates (FNAs) of the salivary glands has not been extensively evaluated. Objective.-To assess participants\u27 responses in the College of American Pathologists (CAP) Nongynecologic Cytology (NGC) Program to determine the accuracy and false-negative rate of ACC cases in salivary gland FNAs. Design.-A retrospective review of the CAP NGC Program\u27s cumulative data from 2000-2010 was performed for the general and the specific reference diagnosis categories for ACC in salivary gland FNAs according to preparation and participant types. Results.-Of 5156 responses, the overall concordance rates for both the general category of malignancy and the specific category of ACC were 63.6% (3279 of 5156) and 38.6% (1966 of 5088), respectively, with a false-negative rate of 36.4% (1877 of 5156). The most frequent false-negative responses were pleomorphic (1080) and monomorphic (526) adenoma (1614 of 5088, 31.5%), while lymphoma was the most frequent malignant misinterpretation. There was a significant statistical difference in concordance to the reference interpretation between the reader types: 39.9% (1006 of 2521) concordance rate for pathologists compared to 33.8% (503 of 1488) for cytotechnologists. However, there was no significant statistical difference for concordance to the general category or reference interpretation, based on preparation type (Papanicolaou versus modified Giemsa stained). Conclusions.-In this interlaboratory comparison educational program, accurate identification of ACC has shown to be problematic, with ACC representing an important cause of false-negative responses. The most common diagnostic pitfall is distinguishing this entity from pleomorphic and monomorphic adenoma in the benign category and from lymphoma and adenocarcinoma in the malignant one
    corecore