Cargando…

The Role of Immunocytochemical Markers to Differentiate Primary from Secondary Neoplastic Hepatic Masses: A Diagnostic Challenge on Cytology

Objective: It is challenging and difficult to differentiate primary from metastatic hepatic masses solely on cytology. The present study aimed to correlate cytomorphological spectrum of hepatic masses with immunocytochemical markers to differentiate primary from metastases in liver. Material and Met...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bhattacharya, Jenna B, Jain, Shyam Lata, Devi, Subbarayan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Federation of Turkish Pathology Societies 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10510624/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34514559
http://dx.doi.org/10.5146/tjpath.2021.01527
_version_ 1785107993777405952
author Bhattacharya, Jenna B
Jain, Shyam Lata
Devi, Subbarayan
author_facet Bhattacharya, Jenna B
Jain, Shyam Lata
Devi, Subbarayan
author_sort Bhattacharya, Jenna B
collection PubMed
description Objective: It is challenging and difficult to differentiate primary from metastatic hepatic masses solely on cytology. The present study aimed to correlate cytomorphological spectrum of hepatic masses with immunocytochemical markers to differentiate primary from metastases in liver. Material and Method: The present study comprised of 30 clinico-radiologically suspicious cases of neoplastic hepatic masses. Ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration smears and cell blocks were prepared as per standard technique; two of the smears were air-dried and Giemsa stained to study cytomorphological features. A panel of markers (HepPar-1, CD 10, CK7, CK19, CD34, and MOC-31) were studied both in smears and cell blocks. Results: Cytomorphological features on smears were evaluated and correlated with immunocytochemistry in all cases; the final diagnosis was: Hepatocellular carcinoma (n=7), cholangiocarcinoma (n=2), hepatoblastoma (n=1) and metastatic carcinoma (n=20). HepPar-1, CD10 and CD34 demonstrated 86%, 72%, 86% sensitivity and 100% specificity respectively for hepatocellular carcinoma; CK7&CK19 showed 100% sensitivity for cholangiocarcinoma, MOC 31 showed 90% sensitivity and 100% specificity for metastatic carcinoma. Conclusion: The present study recommends a panel of minimum three markers (HepPar-1, CD10, and MOC-31) which were helpful to differentiate hepatocellular carcinoma from metastatic carcinoma that was a major diagnostic challenge solely on cytomorphology. Correlating cytomorphology with these three markers, 100% of the cases could be diagnosed as primary malignancy and distinguished accurately from metastatic carcinoma.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10510624
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Federation of Turkish Pathology Societies
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-105106242023-09-21 The Role of Immunocytochemical Markers to Differentiate Primary from Secondary Neoplastic Hepatic Masses: A Diagnostic Challenge on Cytology Bhattacharya, Jenna B Jain, Shyam Lata Devi, Subbarayan Turk Patoloji Derg Original Article Objective: It is challenging and difficult to differentiate primary from metastatic hepatic masses solely on cytology. The present study aimed to correlate cytomorphological spectrum of hepatic masses with immunocytochemical markers to differentiate primary from metastases in liver. Material and Method: The present study comprised of 30 clinico-radiologically suspicious cases of neoplastic hepatic masses. Ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration smears and cell blocks were prepared as per standard technique; two of the smears were air-dried and Giemsa stained to study cytomorphological features. A panel of markers (HepPar-1, CD 10, CK7, CK19, CD34, and MOC-31) were studied both in smears and cell blocks. Results: Cytomorphological features on smears were evaluated and correlated with immunocytochemistry in all cases; the final diagnosis was: Hepatocellular carcinoma (n=7), cholangiocarcinoma (n=2), hepatoblastoma (n=1) and metastatic carcinoma (n=20). HepPar-1, CD10 and CD34 demonstrated 86%, 72%, 86% sensitivity and 100% specificity respectively for hepatocellular carcinoma; CK7&CK19 showed 100% sensitivity for cholangiocarcinoma, MOC 31 showed 90% sensitivity and 100% specificity for metastatic carcinoma. Conclusion: The present study recommends a panel of minimum three markers (HepPar-1, CD10, and MOC-31) which were helpful to differentiate hepatocellular carcinoma from metastatic carcinoma that was a major diagnostic challenge solely on cytomorphology. Correlating cytomorphology with these three markers, 100% of the cases could be diagnosed as primary malignancy and distinguished accurately from metastatic carcinoma. Federation of Turkish Pathology Societies 2021-09-15 /pmc/articles/PMC10510624/ /pubmed/34514559 http://dx.doi.org/10.5146/tjpath.2021.01527 Text en Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article published by Federation of Turkish Pathology Societies under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Original Article
Bhattacharya, Jenna B
Jain, Shyam Lata
Devi, Subbarayan
The Role of Immunocytochemical Markers to Differentiate Primary from Secondary Neoplastic Hepatic Masses: A Diagnostic Challenge on Cytology
title The Role of Immunocytochemical Markers to Differentiate Primary from Secondary Neoplastic Hepatic Masses: A Diagnostic Challenge on Cytology
title_full The Role of Immunocytochemical Markers to Differentiate Primary from Secondary Neoplastic Hepatic Masses: A Diagnostic Challenge on Cytology
title_fullStr The Role of Immunocytochemical Markers to Differentiate Primary from Secondary Neoplastic Hepatic Masses: A Diagnostic Challenge on Cytology
title_full_unstemmed The Role of Immunocytochemical Markers to Differentiate Primary from Secondary Neoplastic Hepatic Masses: A Diagnostic Challenge on Cytology
title_short The Role of Immunocytochemical Markers to Differentiate Primary from Secondary Neoplastic Hepatic Masses: A Diagnostic Challenge on Cytology
title_sort role of immunocytochemical markers to differentiate primary from secondary neoplastic hepatic masses: a diagnostic challenge on cytology
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10510624/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34514559
http://dx.doi.org/10.5146/tjpath.2021.01527
work_keys_str_mv AT bhattacharyajennab theroleofimmunocytochemicalmarkerstodifferentiateprimaryfromsecondaryneoplastichepaticmassesadiagnosticchallengeoncytology
AT jainshyamlata theroleofimmunocytochemicalmarkerstodifferentiateprimaryfromsecondaryneoplastichepaticmassesadiagnosticchallengeoncytology
AT devisubbarayan theroleofimmunocytochemicalmarkerstodifferentiateprimaryfromsecondaryneoplastichepaticmassesadiagnosticchallengeoncytology
AT bhattacharyajennab roleofimmunocytochemicalmarkerstodifferentiateprimaryfromsecondaryneoplastichepaticmassesadiagnosticchallengeoncytology
AT jainshyamlata roleofimmunocytochemicalmarkerstodifferentiateprimaryfromsecondaryneoplastichepaticmassesadiagnosticchallengeoncytology
AT devisubbarayan roleofimmunocytochemicalmarkerstodifferentiateprimaryfromsecondaryneoplastichepaticmassesadiagnosticchallengeoncytology