3 research outputs found
Performance Characteristics of Adenoid Cystic Carcinoma of the Salivary Glands in Fine-Needle Aspirates Results From the College of American Pathologists Nongynecologic Cytology Program
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
The Milan System for Reporting Salivary Gland Cytopathology: Analysis and suggestions of initial survey
BACKGROUND: An international panel of experts in the field of salivary gland cytology (SGC), supported by the American Society of Cytopathology (ASC) and the International Academy of Cytology, conducted a survey to seek evidence and practice patterns regarding SGC. Results were used to provide focus for the proposed Milan System for Reporting Salivary Gland Cytopathology. METHODS: The study group, formed during the 2015 European Congress of Cytology held in Milan, Italy, generated a survey that included 49 specific questions related to the taxonomies, practices, and diagnostic entities of salivary cytology. Qualtrics software was used as the study platform. Software and server support were provided by the division of information technology at the University of Wisconsin. The survey was available online from November 2015 until February 2016. Participants were invited through the Web sites of the ASC, the International Academy of Cytology, and the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology as well as by the ASC e-mail \u201cListServe\u201d; responses were evaluated by the Milan System editors. RESULTS: Responses from a total of 515 participants were collected and reviewed. A total of 347 participants provided demographic data information. Responses revealed variations in diagnostic practice and subsequent management. Participants believed that the acceptable rate for nondiagnostic samples should not be higher than 10%. There were varied opinions regarding the approach to neoplastic lesions of uncertain malignant potential, those that may or may have not local invasion and distant spread. CONCLUSIONS: Results of the survey demonstrated strong support for the development of a unified system for reporting SGC. Cancer Cytopathol 2017;125:757-66. \ua9 2017 American Cancer Society
Chromosomal damage as prognosis marker in cervical carcinogenesis
Cancer of the uterine cervix is the third most common cancer in women worldwide and the most common cancer among Mexican and Latin American women. Risk factors that have been associated with the development of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia suggest that Human Papillomavirus (HPV) types 16, 18, 31, and 33 entail a high risk of developing a malignancy of this type. The accumulation of genetic alterations allows the growth of neoplastic cells; chromosomal instability is an event that occurs in the precancerous stages. The candidate cancer risk biomarkers include cytogenetic endpoints, such as chromosomal aberrations, sister chromatid exchange, micronuclei, and the outcomes of comet assay and DNA breakage detection-fluorescence in situ hybridization. The patterns identified in these cytogenetic studies indicate that chromosomal instability is a transient and chromosomally unstable intermediate in the development of cervical lesions. In this context, the mechanisms that may underlie the progressive increase in genetic instability in these patients seem to be related directly to HPV infection. The studies discussed in this paper show that chromosomal instability may serve as a biomarker by predicting the progression of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Nevertheless, these results should be validated in larger, prospective studies.Π Π°ΠΊ ΡΠ΅ΠΉΠΊΠΈ ΠΌΠ°ΡΠΊΠΈ ΡΠ²Π»ΡΠ΅ΡΡΡ ΡΡΠ΅ΡΡΠΈΠΌ ΠΏΠΎ ΡΠ°ΡΠΏΡΠΎΡΡΡΠ°Π½Π΅Π½Π½ΠΎΡΡΠΈ Π² ΠΌΠΈΡΠ΅ ΡΠΈΠΏΠΎΠ² ΡΠ°ΠΊΠ° Ρ ΠΆΠ΅Π½ΡΠΈΠ½ ΠΈ Π½Π°ΠΈΠ±ΠΎΠ»Π΅Π΅ ΡΠ°ΡΡΠΎ Π²ΡΡΡΠ΅ΡΠ°ΡΡΠΈΠΌΡΡ Ρ ΠΆΠ΅Π½ΡΠΈΠ½ ΠΠ΅ΠΊΡΠΈΠΊΠΈ ΠΈ ΠΠ°ΡΠΈΠ½ΡΠΊΠΎΠΉ ΠΠΌΠ΅ΡΠΈΠΊΠΈ. Π€Π°ΠΊΡΠΎΡΡ ΡΠΈΡΠΊΠ°, ΡΠ²ΡΠ·Π°Π½Π½ΡΠ΅ Ρ ΡΠ°Π·Π²ΠΈΡΠΈΠ΅ΠΌ ΠΈΠ½ΡΡΠ°ΡΠΏΠΈΡΠ΅Π»ΠΈΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ ΡΠ΅ΡΠ²ΠΈΠΊΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ Π½Π΅ΠΎΠΏΠ»Π°Π·ΠΈΠΈ, ΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄ΠΏΠΎΠ»Π°Π³Π°ΡΡ, ΡΡΠΎ ΠΏΠ°ΠΏΠΈΠ»Π»ΠΎΠΌΠ°Π²ΠΈΡΡΡ ΡΠ΅Π»ΠΎΠ²Π΅ΠΊΠ° (HPV) ΡΠΈΠΏΠΎΠ² 16, 18, 31 ΠΈ 33 Π²Π»Π΅ΡΠ΅Ρ Π·Π° ΡΠΎΠ±ΠΎΠΉ Π²ΡΡΠΎΠΊΠΈΠΉ ΡΠΈΡΠΊ ΡΠ°Π·Π²ΠΈΡΠΈΡ ΠΎΠΏΡΡ
ΠΎΠ»Π΅ΠΉ ΡΡΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΡΠΈΠΏΠ°. ΠΠ°ΠΊΠΎΠΏΠ»Π΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ Π³Π΅Π½Π΅ΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΡ
ΠΈΠ·ΠΌΠ΅Π½Π΅Π½ΠΈΠΉ Π΄Π΅Π»Π°Π΅Ρ Π²ΠΎΠ·ΠΌΠΎΠΆΠ½ΡΠΌ ΡΠΎΡΡ ΠΎΠΏΡΡ
ΠΎΠ»Π΅Π²ΡΡ
ΠΊΠ»Π΅ΡΠΎΠΊ, Ρ
ΡΠΎΠΌΠΎΡΠΎΠΌΠ½Π°Ρ Π½Π΅ΡΡΠ°Π±ΠΈΠ»ΡΠ½ΠΎΡΡΡ ΡΠ²Π»ΡΠ΅ΡΡΡ ΡΠΎΠ±ΡΡΠΈΠ΅ΠΌ, ΠΊΠΎΡΠΎΡΠΎΠ΅ ΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄ΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ²ΡΠ΅Ρ ΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄ΡΠ°ΠΊΠΎΠ²ΡΠΌ ΡΡΠ°Π΄ΠΈΡΠΌ. ΠΠΎΠ·ΠΌΠΎΠΆΠ½ΡΠ΅ Π±ΠΈΠΎΠΌΠ°ΡΠΊΠ΅ΡΡ ΡΠΈΡΠΊΠ° ΠΎΠΏΡΡ
ΠΎΠ»ΠΈ Π²ΠΊΠ»ΡΡΠ°ΡΡ ΡΠΈΡΠΎΠ³Π΅Π½Π΅ΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΠ΅ ΠΊΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΠΈ, ΡΠ°ΠΊΠΈΠ΅ ΠΊΠ°ΠΊ Ρ
ΡΠΎΠΌΠΎΡΠΎΠΌΠ½ΡΠ΅ Π°Π±Π΅ΡΡΠ°ΡΠΈΠΈ, ΠΎΠ±ΠΌΠ΅Π½ ΡΠ΅ΡΡΡΠΈΠ½ΡΠΊΠΈΡ
Ρ
ΡΠΎΠΌΠ°ΡΠΈΠ΄, ΠΌΠΈΠΊΡΠΎΡΠ΄ΡΠ°, ΠΈ Π·Π°ΠΊΠ°Π½ΡΠΈΠ²Π°ΡΡΡΡ Comet-Π°Π½Π°Π»ΠΈΠ·ΠΎΠΌ ΠΈ Π΄Π΅ΡΠ΅ΠΊΡΠΈΠ΅ΠΉ ΠΏΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠΌΠΎΠΊ ΠΠΠ Ρ ΠΏΠΎΠΌΠΎΡΡΡ ΡΠ»ΡΠΎΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ΅Π½ΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ Π³ΠΈΠ±ΡΠΈΠ΄ΠΈΠ·Π°ΡΠΈΠΈ in situ. ΠΠ±ΡΠ°Π·ΡΡ, ΠΈΠ΄Π΅Π½ΡΠΈΡΠΈΡΠΈΡΠΎΠ²Π°Π½Π½ΡΠ΅ Π² ΡΠ°ΠΊΠΈΡ
ΡΠΈΡΠΎΠ³Π΅Π½Π΅ΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΡ
ΠΈΡΡΠ»Π΅Π΄ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΡΡ
, ΠΏΠΎΠΊΠ°Π·ΡΠ²Π°ΡΡ, ΡΡΠΎ Ρ
ΡΠΎΠΌΠΎΡΠΎΠΌΠ½Π°Ρ Π½Π΅ΡΡΠ°Π±ΠΈΠ»ΡΠ½ΠΎΡΡΡ ΡΠ²Π»ΡΠ΅ΡΡΡ ΡΡΠ°Π½Π·ΠΈΠ΅Π½ΡΠ½ΡΠΌ ΠΏΡΠΎΠΌΠ΅ΠΆΡΡΠΎΡΠ½ΡΠΌ Π·Π²Π΅Π½ΠΎΠΌ Π² ΡΠ°Π·Π²ΠΈΡΠΈΠΈ ΡΠ΅ΡΠ²ΠΈΠΊΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΡΡ
Π½Π°ΡΡΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠΉ. Π ΡΡΠΎΠΉ ΡΠ²ΡΠ·ΠΈ ΠΌΠ΅Ρ
Π°Π½ΠΈΠ·ΠΌΡ, ΠΊΠΎΡΠΎΡΡΠ΅ ΠΌΠΎΠ³ΡΡ Π»Π΅ΠΆΠ°ΡΡ Π² ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΠ²Π΅ ΠΏΡΠΎΠ³ΡΠ΅ΡΡΠΈΡΡΡΡΠ΅ΠΉ Π³Π΅Π½Π΅ΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠΉ Π½Π΅ΡΡΠ°Π±ΠΈΠ»ΡΠ½ΠΎΡΡΠΈ Ρ ΡΠ°ΠΊΠΈΡ
ΠΏΠ°ΡΠΈΠ΅Π½ΡΠΎΠ², ΠΊΠ°ΠΆΡΡΡΡ Π½Π΅ΠΏΠΎΡΡΠ΅Π΄ΡΡΠ²Π΅Π½Π½ΠΎ ΡΠ²ΡΠ·Π°Π½Π½ΡΠΌΠΈ Ρ ΠΈΠ½ΡΠ΅ΠΊΡΠΈΠ΅ΠΉ HPV. ΠΠ°ΡΡΠΎΡΡΠ΅Π΅ ΠΈΡΡΠ»Π΅Π΄ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΠΏΠΎΠΊΠ°Π·ΡΠ²Π°Π΅Ρ, ΡΡΠΎ Ρ
ΡΠΎΠΌΠΎΡΠΎΠΌΠ½Π°Ρ Π½Π΅ΡΡΠ°Π±ΠΈΠ»ΡΠ½ΠΎΡΡΡ ΠΌΠΎΠΆΠ΅Ρ ΡΠ»ΡΠΆΠΈΡΡ Π±ΠΈΠΎΠΌΠ°ΡΠΊΠ΅ΡΠΎΠΌ Π΄Π»Ρ ΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄ΡΠΊΠ°Π·Π°Π½ΠΈΡ ΡΠ°Π·Π²ΠΈΡΠΈΡ ΠΈΠ½ΡΡΠ°ΡΠΏΠΈΡΠ΅Π»ΠΈΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ ΡΠ΅ΡΠ²ΠΈΠΊΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ Π½Π΅ΠΎΠΏΠ»Π°Π·ΠΈΠΈ, ΡΠ΅ΠΌ Π½Π΅ ΠΌΠ΅Π½Π΅Π΅ ΡΡΠΈ ΡΠ΅Π·ΡΠ»ΡΡΠ°ΡΡ Π΄ΠΎΠ»ΠΆΠ½Ρ Π±ΡΡΡ ΠΎΡΠ΅Π½Π΅Π½Ρ Π² Π±ΠΎΠ»Π΅Π΅ ΠΌΠ°ΡΡΡΠ°Π±Π½ΡΡ
ΠΈΡΡΠ»Π΅Π΄ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΡΡ