Literature DB >> 12122279

Diagnostic DNA-flow- vs. -image-cytometry in effusion cytology.

Helma Motherby1, Natalia Pomjanski, Mary Kube, Alexandra Boros, Thomas Heiden, Bernhard Tribukait, Alfred Böcking.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12122279      PMCID: PMC4618898          DOI: 10.1155/2002/840210

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Anal Cell Pathol        ISSN: 0921-8912            Impact factor:   2.916


  9 in total

1.  C-value reassessment of plant standards: an image cytometry approach.

Authors:  Milene Miranda Praça-Fontes; Carlos Roberto Carvalho; Wellington Ronildo Clarindo
Journal:  Plant Cell Rep       Date:  2011-08-18       Impact factor: 4.570

Review 2.  [Pleural mesothelioma. Cytology and molecular diagnostics].

Authors:  T Vlajnic; S Savic; L Bubendorf
Journal:  Pathologe       Date:  2014-11       Impact factor: 1.011

3.  Evaluation of Viral Genome Copies Within Viral Factories on Different DNA Viruses.

Authors:  Zaven A Karalyan; Roza A Izmailyan; Liana O Abroyan; Aida S Avetisyan; Lina A Hakobyan; Hovakim S Zakaryan; Elena M Karalova
Journal:  J Histochem Cytochem       Date:  2018-01-03       Impact factor: 2.479

4.  Microsatellite analysis of pleural supernatants could increase sensitivity of pleural fluid cytology.

Authors:  Matthias Woenckhaus; Ulrike Grepmeier; Bernhard Werner; Christian Schulz; Felix Rockmann; Peter J Wild; Georg Röckelein; Hagen Blaszyk; Marion Schuierer; Ferdinand Hofstaedter; Arndt Hartmann; Wolfgang Dietmaier
Journal:  J Mol Diagn       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 5.568

5.  Comparability of tumor-cytogenetics and -DNA-cytometry.

Authors:  Alfred Böcking
Journal:  Mol Cytogenet       Date:  2015-04-18       Impact factor: 2.009

6.  DNA image cytometric analysis of bronchial washings as an adjunct for the detection of lung cancer in a clinical setting.

Authors:  Yan Hu; Qing Yu; Cuiyan Guo; Guangfa Wang
Journal:  Cancer Med       Date:  2022-02-11       Impact factor: 4.711

7.  Gross genomic damage measured by DNA image cytometry independently predicts gastric cancer patient survival.

Authors:  J A M Belien; T E Buffart; A J Gill; M A M Broeckaert; P Quirke; G A Meijer; H I Grabsch
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2009-09-15       Impact factor: 7.640

8.  Automated detection of cancer cells in effusion specimens by DNA karyometry.

Authors:  Alfred H Böcking; David Friedrich; Dietrich Meyer-Ebrecht; Chenyan Zhu; Anna Feider; Stefan Biesterfeld
Journal:  Cancer Cytopathol       Date:  2018-10-19       Impact factor: 5.284

9.  Removing defocused objects from single focal plane scans of cytological slides.

Authors:  David Friedrich; Alfred Böcking; Dietrich Meyer-Ebrecht; Dorit Merhof
Journal:  J Pathol Inform       Date:  2016-05-04
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.