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