Search

Distinguishing metastatic carcinoma cells from reactive mesothelial cells in effusion samples is often challenging based on morphology alone. Metastatic carcinoma cells in fluid samples may mimic reactive mesothelial cells due to overlapping cytological features. We report a case of a pleural effusion in a 51-year-old female patient with a medical history significant for bilateral ovarian tumors and peritoneal implants diagnosed as serous tumor of borderline malignant potential. The effusion was composed almost entirely of adenocarcinoma cells that morphologically mimicked reactive mesothelial cells. The diagnosis of metastatic adenocarcinoma was made after a wide immunostaining panel of antibodies. Recognizing metastatic adenocarcinoma cells in effusion samples can be challenging and an accurate diagnosis may have significant impact on clinical management as demonstrated by this case., (Copyright © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc., a Wiley company.)

Objective: In the past decade molecular diagnostics has changed the clinical management of lung adenocarcinoma patients. Molecular diagnostics, however, is largely dependent on the quantity and quality of the tumor DNA that is retrieved from the tissue or cytology samples. Frequently, patients are diagnosed on cytology specimens where the tumor cells are scattered within the cell block, making selecting for tumor enrichment difficult. In the past we have used laser capture microdissection (LCM) to select for pure populations of tumor cells to increase the sensitivity of molecular assays. This study explores several methods for semiautomated computer-guided LCM., Study Design: Hematoxylin and eosin- or TTF-1-immunostained slides from a pleural effusion cell block with metastatic lung adenocarcinoma were used for LCM with either AutoScan or a recently described pattern-matching algorithm, spatially invariant vector quantization (SIVQ), to define morphologic predicates (vectors) to select cells of interest., Results: We retrieved pure populations of tumor cells using both algorithm-guided LCM approaches with slight variations in cellular retrievals. Both methods were semiautomated, requiring minimum technical supervision., Conclusion: In this study we demonstrate the first semiautomated, computer-guided LCM of a cytology specimen using SIVQ and AutoScan, a first step towards the long-term goal of integrating LCM into the clinical cytology-molecular workflow., (Copyright © 2012 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

The effects on morphology and diagnostic interpretation of delayed processing of refrigerated effusion samples have not been well documented. The potential for cellular degeneration has led many laboratories to reflexively fix samples rather than submit fresh/refrigerated samples for cytologic examination. We sought to determine if effusion specimens are suitable for morphologic, immunocytochemical, and DNA-based molecular studies after prolonged periods of refrigerated storage time. Ten fresh effusion specimens were refrigerated at 4 degrees C; aliquots were processed at specific points in time (days 0, 3, 5, 7, 10, 14). Specimens evaluated included four pleural (3 benign, 1 breast adenocarcinoma) and six peritoneal (2 ovarian adenocarcinomas, 1 malignant melanoma, 2 mesotheliomas, 1 atypical mesothelial) effusions. The morphology of the cytologic preparations from the 10 effusions was preserved and interpretable after 14 days of storage at 4 degrees C. The immunocytochemical profile of the samples (AE1/AE3, EMA, calretinin, and LCA) was consistent from day 0 to day 14. Amplifiable DNA was present in all samples tested on day 14. We conclude that cytopathologic interpretation of effusion samples remains reliable with refrigeration at 4 degrees C even if processing is delayed.

Discrepant results in effusion immunocytochemistry are often the result of specimen processing. Smears, cytospins, cell blocks, and monolayer preparations have all been used in various published studies; thus, there is no consistency in the immunostaining process for cytology to compare with the surgical pathology "gold standard" results. We sought to evaluate optimal specimen preparation for the immunostaining of effusion samples. Fourteen reactive and 15 malignant effusion samples (various epithelial/mesothelial neoplasms) were each prepared in three forms: air-dried cytospins (postfixed in ethanol), formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded cell blocks, and liquid-based thin-layer (ThinPrep, CYTYC, Boxborough, MA) processing. All slides were immunostained with antibodies commonly used in effusion cytology: HBME-1, calretinin, E-cadherin, BerEP4, B72.3, LeuM1, and CA19-9. Cytospin and ThinPrep samples performed in a similar manner: high background staining was encountered in 66% of cases, most evident in three-dimensional clusters of cells. In addition, membrane staining patterns were difficult to interpret. Cell blocks provided the best milieu for morphologic interpretation, with less background staining (only 17% of cases) and results that most closely approximated those reported in the surgical pathology literature. The cost per test for cell block immunocytochemistry was also the most economical for our laboratory.