Acta cytologica · 2020
The Value of Cellblock in Diagnosing Pancreatic Lymphomas.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
AbdullGaffar Badr, Hotait Hassan
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is the diagnostic tool of choice for pancreatic solid mass lesions. Pancreatic lymphomas represent an infrequent and challenging cytologic diagnosis. Our aim was to determine the diagnostic value of cellblock (CB) in the diagnosis of pancreatic lymphomas.
METHODS: We retrieved pancreatic EUS-FNAs performed over 10-years from our institution's database. We correlated the cytologic and CB diagnosis with the histologic diagnosis as a gold standard.
RESULTS: We found 5 cases (2 women and 3 men; age range, 37-66 years [average age, 52 years]) of pancreatic lymphomas with histologic follow-up biopsies. They included 1 case of T-cell lymphoma (TCL), 1 case of plasma cell neoplasm (multiple myeloma [MM]), 1 case of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), 1 case of classic Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), and 1 case of high-grade B-cell lymphoma (HGBCL). Cytologically, the cases of HL and DLBCL were suspected, the cases of TCL and MM were confused with undifferentiated carcinoma and neuroendocrine carcinoma, and the case of HGBCL was inconclusive. CB samples were of value in highlighting the morphologic details of lymphomas and allowed confirmation, proper classification, and grading of the lymphomas using immunohistochemistry that matched tissue biopsies.
CONCLUSIONS: EUS-FNA smears with CBs are helpful diagnostic tools, differentiating lymphomas from other malignancies and from nonneoplastic lymphocyte-rich lesions. CBs allow proper classification and grading of cases of pancreatic lymphomas.
METHODS: We retrieved pancreatic EUS-FNAs performed over 10-years from our institution's database. We correlated the cytologic and CB diagnosis with the histologic diagnosis as a gold standard.
RESULTS: We found 5 cases (2 women and 3 men; age range, 37-66 years [average age, 52 years]) of pancreatic lymphomas with histologic follow-up biopsies. They included 1 case of T-cell lymphoma (TCL), 1 case of plasma cell neoplasm (multiple myeloma [MM]), 1 case of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), 1 case of classic Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), and 1 case of high-grade B-cell lymphoma (HGBCL). Cytologically, the cases of HL and DLBCL were suspected, the cases of TCL and MM were confused with undifferentiated carcinoma and neuroendocrine carcinoma, and the case of HGBCL was inconclusive. CB samples were of value in highlighting the morphologic details of lymphomas and allowed confirmation, proper classification, and grading of the lymphomas using immunohistochemistry that matched tissue biopsies.
CONCLUSIONS: EUS-FNA smears with CBs are helpful diagnostic tools, differentiating lymphomas from other malignancies and from nonneoplastic lymphocyte-rich lesions. CBs allow proper classification and grading of cases of pancreatic lymphomas.