Cytologic differential diagnosis of follicular lymphoma grades 1 and 2 from reactive follicular hyperplasia: Cytologic features of fine-needle aspiration smears with Pap stain and fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis to detect t(14;18)(q32;q21) chromosomal translocation

2005 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Koji Kishimoto ◽  
Takashi Kitamura ◽  
Kazuhiro Fujita ◽  
Genshu Tate ◽  
Toshiyuki Mitsuya
Keyword(s):  
Differential Diagnosis ◽  
In Situ Hybridization ◽  
Follicular Lymphoma ◽  
Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization ◽  
Fine Needle Aspiration ◽  
Chromosomal Translocation ◽  
Needle Aspiration ◽  
Fine Needle ◽  
Follicular Hyperplasia

The Utility of UroVysion Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization in Pancreatic Fine-Needle Aspiration Samples Directed and Obtained by Endoscopic Ultrasonography

2013 ◽  
Vol 137 (1) ◽  
pp. 64-71 ◽  
Author(s):  
David N. Henkes ◽  
Sandeep N. Patel ◽  
Laura A. Rosenkranz ◽  
Jose L. Escobedo
Keyword(s):  
In Situ Hybridization ◽  
Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization ◽  
Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma ◽  
Fine Needle Aspiration ◽  
False Negative ◽  
High Specificity ◽  
Needle Aspiration ◽  
Fine Needle

Context.—The diagnosis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma can be challenging for the pathologist. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided, fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) can be used to obtain samples of pancreatic masses. UroVysion fluorescence in situ hybridization (UFISH) has been reported to increase the sensitivity and to be very specific for the diagnosis of adenocarcinoma when combined with cytology in the diagnosis of biliary brushings and washings. Objectives.—To determine the sensitivity and specificity of UFISH on tissues obtained from pancreatic lesions suggestive of adenocarcinoma obtained by EUS-FNA, compared against fine-needle aspiration (FNA) results. Additionally, to use patient follow-up data to evaluate UFISH results in FNA samples that showed significant atypia but did not meet the criteria for malignancy. Design.—Sixty consecutive cases of pancreatic EUS-FNA from our institution submitted for UFISH testing. Results.—Polysomic UFISH has a sensitivity of 93% and a specificity of 100% when compared against FNA results. Follow-up studies showed that adding UFISH to FNA increased the sensitivity for patients with true-positive results from 83% to 94% and increased specificity from 85% to 100%. For 7 patients with suspicious FNA results who had sufficient follow-up, UFISH was 100% sensitive and 100% specific. Conclusions.—UFISH can be used to confirm the diagnosis of malignancy in pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Because of the high specificity, polysomic UFISH may help establish a diagnosis of malignancy when the FNA features are suggestive of, but not conclusive for, malignancy. The most common cause for a false-negative UFISH result was insufficient numbers of malignant cells.

scholarly journals Endoscopic ultrasound and endobronchial ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of deep-seated lymphadenopathy: Analysis of 1338 cases

CytoJournal ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amberly L Nunez ◽  
Nirag C Jhala ◽  
Andrew J Carroll ◽  
Fady M Mikhail ◽  
Vishnu V.B. Reddy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
In Situ Hybridization ◽  
Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization ◽  
Fine Needle Aspiration ◽  
Flow Cytometric Analysis ◽  
Needle Aspiration ◽  
Endobronchial Ultrasound ◽  
Ultrasound Guided ◽  
Fine Needle ◽  
Flow Cytometric

Background: We retrospectively studied 1338 samples of lymph nodes obtained by endoscopic and endobronchial ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration biopsy (EUS and EBUS-FNAB) with an objective of characterizing the utility of this diagnostic modality in the assessment of deep-seated lymphadenopathy. The secondary aims were to establish the utility in the diagnosis of lymphoma and to determine the number of passes required to obtain adequate cellularity for flow cytometric analysis. Materials and Methods: On-site assessment was performed by a cytopathologist using Diff-Quik (American Scientific Products, McGraw Park, IL) stain. In addition, Papanicolaou and immunohistochemical stains were performed and additional samples were sent for flow cytometric analyses (n = 145). The final cytologic diagnosis was correlated with surgical pathology diagnosis and/or clinical follow-up. In select cases, fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis with specific probes was performed on Diff-Quik smears. Results: Both morphology as well as ancillary studies (flow cytometry or immunohistochemical stain and/or fluorescence in situ hybridization) show that EUS and EBUS-FNA are effective techniques to detect and stage intrathoracic and intra-abdominal tumors. Operating characteristics show that these are highly sensitive (89%) and specific (100%) techniques for the diagnosis of lymphoma. At least two passes provided an average of 5.66 million cells (range, 0.12-62.32 million) for lymphoma cases. Conclusions: EUS and EBUS-FNA are powerful modalities to stage malignancies and at least two passes can provide adequate cells for flow cytometric analysis. We also demonstrate that fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis can be performed on Diff-Quik-stained and mounted smears.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document