Cargando…

Diagnostic DNA-Flow- vs. -Image-Cytometry in Effusion Cytology

Aims: To determine the sensitivity and specificity of flow‐ and image‐cytometry for the detection of DNA‐aneuploidy as a marker for malignant cells in effusions. Methods: 200 effusions (80 tumor cell‐positive, 74 negative and 46 cytologically equivocal) were stained with DAPI‐SR for DNA‐flow‐ and wi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Motherby, Helma, Pomjanski, Natalia, Kube, Mary, Boros, Alexandra, Heiden, Thomas, Tribukait, Bernhard, Böcking, Alfred
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: IOS Press 2002
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4618898/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12122279
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2002/840210
_version_ 1782396995210575872
author Motherby, Helma
Pomjanski, Natalia
Kube, Mary
Boros, Alexandra
Heiden, Thomas
Tribukait, Bernhard
Böcking, Alfred
author_facet Motherby, Helma
Pomjanski, Natalia
Kube, Mary
Boros, Alexandra
Heiden, Thomas
Tribukait, Bernhard
Böcking, Alfred
author_sort Motherby, Helma
collection PubMed
description Aims: To determine the sensitivity and specificity of flow‐ and image‐cytometry for the detection of DNA‐aneuploidy as a marker for malignant cells in effusions. Methods: 200 effusions (80 tumor cell‐positive, 74 negative and 46 cytologically equivocal) were stained with DAPI‐SR for DNA‐flow‐ and with Feulgen‐Pararosaniline for ‐image‐cytometry. They were measured using a PAS‐flow‐cytometer and an AutoCyte‐QUIC‐DNA‐workstation according to the ESACP consensus reports for DNA‐flow‐ and ‐image‐cytometry, respectively [7,23,29,49]. Results: Sensitivity of DNA‐aneuploidy for the identification of malignant cells was 32.1% for DNA‐flow‐ and 75.0% for ‐image‐cytometry, specificity of ‐euploidy in benign cells was 100.0% for both methods. Positive predictive value of DNA‐aneuploidy for the identification of malignant cells was 100.0% for both techniques, negative predictive value of DNA‐euploidy was 48.6% for DNA‐flow‐ and 72.0% for ‐image‐cytometry. Conclusions: Searching for DNA‐aneuploidy as a diagnostic marker for neoplastic cells in serous effusions image‐cytometry revealed superior sensitivity as compared with monoparametric flow cytometry.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4618898
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2002
publisher IOS Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-46188982016-01-12 Diagnostic DNA-Flow- vs. -Image-Cytometry in Effusion Cytology Motherby, Helma Pomjanski, Natalia Kube, Mary Boros, Alexandra Heiden, Thomas Tribukait, Bernhard Böcking, Alfred Anal Cell Pathol Other Aims: To determine the sensitivity and specificity of flow‐ and image‐cytometry for the detection of DNA‐aneuploidy as a marker for malignant cells in effusions. Methods: 200 effusions (80 tumor cell‐positive, 74 negative and 46 cytologically equivocal) were stained with DAPI‐SR for DNA‐flow‐ and with Feulgen‐Pararosaniline for ‐image‐cytometry. They were measured using a PAS‐flow‐cytometer and an AutoCyte‐QUIC‐DNA‐workstation according to the ESACP consensus reports for DNA‐flow‐ and ‐image‐cytometry, respectively [7,23,29,49]. Results: Sensitivity of DNA‐aneuploidy for the identification of malignant cells was 32.1% for DNA‐flow‐ and 75.0% for ‐image‐cytometry, specificity of ‐euploidy in benign cells was 100.0% for both methods. Positive predictive value of DNA‐aneuploidy for the identification of malignant cells was 100.0% for both techniques, negative predictive value of DNA‐euploidy was 48.6% for DNA‐flow‐ and 72.0% for ‐image‐cytometry. Conclusions: Searching for DNA‐aneuploidy as a diagnostic marker for neoplastic cells in serous effusions image‐cytometry revealed superior sensitivity as compared with monoparametric flow cytometry. IOS Press 2002 2002-01-01 /pmc/articles/PMC4618898/ /pubmed/12122279 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2002/840210 Text en Copyright © 2002 Hindawi Publishing Corporation.
spellingShingle Other
Motherby, Helma
Pomjanski, Natalia
Kube, Mary
Boros, Alexandra
Heiden, Thomas
Tribukait, Bernhard
Böcking, Alfred
Diagnostic DNA-Flow- vs. -Image-Cytometry in Effusion Cytology
title Diagnostic DNA-Flow- vs. -Image-Cytometry in Effusion Cytology
title_full Diagnostic DNA-Flow- vs. -Image-Cytometry in Effusion Cytology
title_fullStr Diagnostic DNA-Flow- vs. -Image-Cytometry in Effusion Cytology
title_full_unstemmed Diagnostic DNA-Flow- vs. -Image-Cytometry in Effusion Cytology
title_short Diagnostic DNA-Flow- vs. -Image-Cytometry in Effusion Cytology
title_sort diagnostic dna-flow- vs. -image-cytometry in effusion cytology
topic Other
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4618898/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12122279
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2002/840210
work_keys_str_mv AT motherbyhelma diagnosticdnaflowvsimagecytometryineffusioncytology
AT pomjanskinatalia diagnosticdnaflowvsimagecytometryineffusioncytology
AT kubemary diagnosticdnaflowvsimagecytometryineffusioncytology
AT borosalexandra diagnosticdnaflowvsimagecytometryineffusioncytology
AT heidenthomas diagnosticdnaflowvsimagecytometryineffusioncytology
AT tribukaitbernhard diagnosticdnaflowvsimagecytometryineffusioncytology
AT bockingalfred diagnosticdnaflowvsimagecytometryineffusioncytology