LGCmain
Indian Journal of Pathology and Microbiology
Home About us Instructions Submission Subscribe Advertise Contact e-Alerts Ahead Of Print Login 
Users Online: 1060
Print this page  Email this page Bookmark this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 63  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 427-434

Evaluation of cell blocks from effusion specimens in Gynecologic Oncopathology: An experience of 220 cases, diagnosed at a Tertiary Cancer Referral Center


1 Department of Surgical Pathology; Division of Cytopathology, Tata Memorial Center, HBNI University, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
2 Department of Surgical Pathology, Tata Memorial Center, HBNI University, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
3 Division of Cytopathology, Tata Memorial Center, HBNI University, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
4 Department of Surgical Oncology, Tata Memorial Center, HBNI University, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
5 Department of Medical Oncology, Gynecology Disease Management Group, Tata Memorial Center, HBNI University, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

Correspondence Address:
Bharat Rekhi
Professor/Pathologist, Room Number: AB-818, Department of Surgical Pathology, 8th Floor, Annex Building, Tata Memorial Hospital, Dr E.B. Road, Parel, Mumbai - 400 012, Maharashtra
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/IJPM.IJPM_858_19

Rights and Permissions

One of the common indications of ascitic fluid examination in gynecological oncopathology is the detection and classification of malignant cells, especially in cases of clinically suspicious tubo-ovarian masses. The present study was undertaken to assess and validate the diagnostic utility of cell blocks (CBs) and compare its results with the corresponding conventional smears, prepared from effusion samples. CBs were prepared by thromboplastin technique in 220 cases. In 208 cases, diagnostic concordance between results obtained from smears and corresponding CBs was evaluated. Various antibody markers were tested, as per individual case. The average age of patients was 52.2 years. Positive immunohistochemical (IHC) staining for various markers was observed in 182 cases (82.7%) The most frequently positive antibody marker was PAX8 (101/134), followed by p53 (85/92) [mutation type (either diffusely positive or completely negative)], WT1 (tumor cells) (80/112), calretinin (2/87) (diffuse), BerEP4 (21/49), CA125 (21/24), CK7 (31/39) and CK20 and CDX2, together (5/16). Various other IHC markers utilized, including their positive expression, were TTF1 (1/10), p40 (3/3), p63 (2/4), ER (21/29), HBME1 (1/7), GATA3 (1/4), and MIC2 (1/1). Complete diagnostic concordance between CBs and smears was observed in 170/208 cases (81.7%). There were 20 major discordances, 10 minor and 8 cases with sampling errors. IHC was useful in classifying 158/182 (86.8%) cases, including serous or Müllerian adenocarcinoma (n = 123), mostly high-grade (121); metastatic squamous carcinoma (3); gastrointestinal-type adenocarcinoma (8); pulmonary adenocarcinoma (1); breast adenocarcinoma (1); Ewing sarcoma (1); and mesothelioma (2). CBs are complementary to smears in the detection of gynecological malignancies, mostly high-grade serous adenocarcinomas. These provide an opportunity for testing several IHC markers, for a precise diagnosis, including in various uncommon case scenarios, associated with significant therapeutic implications.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed531    
    Printed3    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded102    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal