Detection of cytokeratins 19/20 and guanylyl cyclase C in peripheral blood of colorectal cancer patients

The clinical significance of detecting supposed tumour cell-derived mRNA transcripts in blood using the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) remains unclear. We have used a fully quantitative 5′-nuclease RT-PCR assay to screen for the expression of cytokeratins (ck) 19 and 20 and guanylyl cyclase C (GCC) in the peripheral blood of 21 healthy controls and 27 colorectal cancer patients. Expression of cytokeratin 19 and 20 mRNA was detected in 30% and 100% of samples, respectively, taken from healthy volunteers. There was no apparent difference in ck19 and ck20 mRNA transcription levels between controls and patients, or between patients with different Dukes' stages. While GCC mRNA was detected in only 1/21 control samples, it was expressed in approximately 80% of patients, although again there was no correlation between GCC levels and disease stage. Transcription levels of all three markers varied considerably between samples, even between samples taken from the same person at different times. We conclude that neither ck19 nor ck20 are reliable markers for the detection of colon epithelial cells in peripheral blood and that an evaluation of the usefulness of GCC awaits further longitudinal studies. © 1999 Cancer Research Campaig

Combined EsophaCap cytology and MUC2 immunohistochemistry for screening of intestinal metaplasia, dysplasia and carcinoma

Zhongren Zhou,1 Irina Kalatskaya,2 Donna Russell,1 Norman Marcon,3 Maria Cirocco,3 Paul M Krzyzanowski,2 Cathy Streutker,3 Hua Liang,4 Virginia R Litle,5 Tony E Godfrey,5 Lincoln Stein21Department of Pathology & Immunology, Washington University, Saint Louis, MO, USA; 2Department of Adaptive Oncology, Ontario Institute for Cancer Research, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; 3Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; 4Department of Statistics, George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA; 5Department of Surgery, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USAPurpose: The incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) has increased by 700% in Western countries over the last 30 years. Although clinical guidelines call for endoscopic surveillance for EAC among high-risk populations, fewer than 5% of new EAC patients are under surveillance at the time of diagnosis. We studied the accuracy of combined cytopathology and MUC2 immunohistochemistry (IHC) for screening of Intestinal Metaplasia (IM), dysplasia and EAC, using specimens collected from the EsophaCap swallowable encapsulated cytology sponge from Canada and United States.Patients and methods: By comparing the EsophaCap cytological diagnosis with concurrent endoscopic biopsies performed on the same patients in 28 cases, we first built up the cytology diagnostic categories and criteria. Based on these criteria, 136 cases were evaluated by both cytology and MUC2 IHC with blinded to patient biopsy diagnosis.Results: We first set up categories and criteria for cytological diagnosis of EscophaCap samples. Based on these, we divided our evaluated cytological samples into two groups: non-IM group and IM or dysplasia or adenocarcinoma group. Using the biopsy as our gold standard to screen IM, dysplasia and EAC by combined cytology and MUC2 IHC, the sensitivity and specificity were 68% and 91%, respectively, which is in the range of clinically useful cytological screening tests such as the cervical Pap smear.Conclusions: Combined EsophaCap cytology and MUC2 IHC could be a good screening test for IM and Beyond.Keywords: Barrett’s esophagus, esophageal adenocarcinoma, cytology screening, MUC2 IHC, EsophaCap, intestinal metaplasi

The carotid body tumor

A 63-year old female was referred to our hospital because she had a mass on the right side of the neck. The swelling had slowly progressed in a couple of months. Besides problems with swallowing there were no other complaints. Her previous medical history was unremarkable and she could not remember any family members with similar lesions. Physical examination showed a non-tender mass with a diameter of around 6 cm located just anterior of the sternocleidomastoid muscle in the anterior triangle of the neck. The mass was mobile in a back-forward direction but could not be moved in a cranial-caudal direction. No signs of cranial nerve deficits were detected. An ultrasound examination showed a highly vascularized structure in the bifurcation between the internal and external carotid artery (Fig. 35.1).</p