The Utility of UroVysion Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization in Pancreatic Fine-Needle Aspiration Samples Directed and Obtained by Endoscopic Ultrasonography
and the Department of Medicine/Gastroenterology, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas (Drs Patel and Rosenkranz).Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine (Impact Factor: 2.84). 01/2013; 137(1):64-71. DOI: 10.5858/arpa.2011-0241-OA
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.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Pancreatobiliary tract carcinoma is a lethal disease with low survival rates and limited treatment options. Diagnosis is complicated by benign conditions that can mimic malignancy on radiological studies (e.g. primary sclerosing cholangitis or PSC) and the suboptimal sensitivity of endoscopic biopsy/brushings obtained by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The detection of multiple chromosomal gains by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), referred to as polysomy, has demonstrated improved sensitivity over routine cytological evaluation. The evaluation of brushings by both routine cytology and FISH in our cytopathology laboratory has been in clinical practice since 2003. Strong morphological and screening skills enable cytotechnologists to become proficient in the assessment of FISH slides, which translates into cost and time savings. Multiple reports from various institutions have demonstrated the utility of FISH for patients with and without PSC. The incorporation of routine cytology and FISH results into the management algorithm for patients under suspicion for pancreatobiliary malignancy is a testament to the clinical success of these cytological assays.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND Endoscopic fine-needle aspiration (FNA) and brush cytology are standard methods for the diagnosis of pancreatobiliary malignancies. Although the majority of cytological diagnoses are straightforward, there remains a difficult category of inconclusive cytology. This study explored the utility of fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) to improve the diagnostic stratification between reactive and malignant cells in cases of inconclusive cytology.METHODS The multiprobe FISH assay UroVysion was used for copy number assessment of chromosomes 3, 7, 17, and the 9p21 locus on Papanicolaou-stained specimens with a diagnosis of inconclusive cytology (n = 50), adenocarcinoma (n = 31) and no evidence of malignancy (n = 9). The target cells were photographed and their coordinates saved on an automated stage prior to hybridization. A positive test was defined as increased copy number (> 2) of at least 2 chromosomes (3, 7, or 17) in at least 4 atypical cells, or loss of 9p21 in at least 12 cells.RESULTSFISH confirmed all 31 cytological diagnoses of pancreatobiliary adenocarcinomas, and was negative in the 9 patients with negative cytology. Among the 50 cases with inconclusive cytology, FISH detected 19 of 31 cases with a final diagnosis of adenocarcinoma, and was negative in all 19 cases with no final evidence of malignancy (sensitivity of 61.3%, specificity of 100%, positive predictive value of 100%, negative predictive value of 61.3%). Loss of 9p21 was found in 43 (86%) of all 50 FISH-positive cases.CONCLUSIONS Multiprobe FISH combined with automated relocation of atypical cells is a powerful technique to clarify inconclusive cytology of the pancreatobiliary tract, allowing for a better distinction between reactive atypia and malignancy. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol) 2014. © 2014 American Cancer Society.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The role of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) in evaluating pancreatic pathology has been well documented from the beginning of its clinical use. High spatial resolution and the close proximity to the evaluated organs within the mediastinum and abdominal cavity allow detection of small focal lesions and precise tissue acquisition from suspected lesions within the reach of this method. Fine needle aspiration (FNA) is considered of additional value to EUS and is performed to obtain tissue diagnosis. Tissue acquisition from suspected lesions for cytological or histological analysis allows, not only the differentiation between malignant and non-malignant lesions, but, in most cases, also the accurate distinction between the various types of malignant lesions. It is well documented that the best results are achieved only if an adequate sample is obtained for further analysis, if the material is processed in an appropriate way, and if adequate ancillary methods are performed. This is a multi-step process and could be quite a challenge in some cases. In this article, we discuss the technical aspects of tissue acquisition by EUS-guided-FNA (EUS-FNA), as well as the role of an on-site cytopathologist, various means of specimen processing, and the selection of the appropriate ancillary method for providing an accurate tissue diagnosis and maximizing the yield of this method. The main goal of this review is to alert endosonographers, not only to the different possibilities of tissue acquisition, namely EUS-FNA, but also to bring to their attention the importance of proper sample processing in the evaluation of various lesions in the gastrointestinal tract and other accessible organs. All aspects of tissue acquisition (needles, suction, use of stylet, complications, etc.) have been well discussed lately. Adequate tissue samples enable comprehensive diagnoses, which answer the main clinical questions, thus enabling targeted therapy.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.