Cytopathology : official journal of the British Society for Clinical Cytology · 2018
Abnormal immunolabelling of SMAD4 in cell block specimens to distinguish malignant and benign pancreatic cells.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Matsuda Yoko, Esaka Shikine, Suzuki Akemi, Hamashima Yuri, Imaizumi Masayuki, Matsukawa Miho, Fujii Yuko, Aida Junko, Takubo Kaiyo, Ishiwata Toshiyuki, Nishimura Makoto, Arai Tomio
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Accurate diagnosis of malignant and benign pancreatic lesions can be challenging, especially with endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) samples that are small and/or degraded. In the present study, we determined how to best evaluate abnormal SMAD4 expression by immunohistochemical staining on cell block specimens from EUS-FNA samples.
RESULTS: In surgically resected pancreas, when abnormal SMAD4 immunolabelling was evaluated as negative SMAD4 expression, the sensitivity was low (33%), but when it was evaluated as decreased SMAD4 expression, the sensitivity improved (53%). Specificity and positive predictive value were high for both evaluations. There were no false-positive cases. In cell block specimens, decreased SMAD4 expression showed 47% sensitivity and 72% specificity, while negative SMAD4 expression showed lower sensitivity (20%) and higher specificity (100%). Both evaluations in cell block specimens showed lower sensitivity and specificity compared to resected specimens. False-positive and -negative rates were higher for cell blocks than for resected specimens.
CONCLUSIONS: Decreased SMAD4 immunolabelling provided improved sensitivity as compared to negative SMAD4 immunolabelling; therefore, it is important to compare SMAD4 expression in a sample to its expression in normal cells. Abnormal SMAD4 labelling showed low sensitivity and high specificity; therefore, SMAD4 staining using EUS-FNA samples might be helpful to detect malignancies that possess SMAD4 gene abnormalities.
RESULTS: In surgically resected pancreas, when abnormal SMAD4 immunolabelling was evaluated as negative SMAD4 expression, the sensitivity was low (33%), but when it was evaluated as decreased SMAD4 expression, the sensitivity improved (53%). Specificity and positive predictive value were high for both evaluations. There were no false-positive cases. In cell block specimens, decreased SMAD4 expression showed 47% sensitivity and 72% specificity, while negative SMAD4 expression showed lower sensitivity (20%) and higher specificity (100%). Both evaluations in cell block specimens showed lower sensitivity and specificity compared to resected specimens. False-positive and -negative rates were higher for cell blocks than for resected specimens.
CONCLUSIONS: Decreased SMAD4 immunolabelling provided improved sensitivity as compared to negative SMAD4 immunolabelling; therefore, it is important to compare SMAD4 expression in a sample to its expression in normal cells. Abnormal SMAD4 labelling showed low sensitivity and high specificity; therefore, SMAD4 staining using EUS-FNA samples might be helpful to detect malignancies that possess SMAD4 gene abnormalities.