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...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
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 |