BACKGROUND: The identification of BRAF mutations in thyroid cancer has prognostic and therapeutic implications. Although the gold standard for identifying BRAF mutations is molecular testing, the ability to perform BRAF p.V600E immunostaining on fine-needle aspiration (FNA) samples can facilitate the rapid triaging of patients to treatment options. METHODS: A total of 50 thyroid carcinoma FNA samples, including papillary (29 samples), poorly differentiated (10 samples), anaplastic (9 samples), and Hurthle cell (2 samples) carcinomas, with a known BRAF p.V600E mutation status were selected for the current study. Immunostaining was performed on smears and cell block sections using an anti-BRAF p.V600E antibody (clone VE1). The results were compared with the known mutation status obtained by molecular testing and/or immunostaining of surgical pathology material from the same patient. RESULTS: Of the total of 50 cases, 26 cases had smears available for the evaluation of BRAF p.V600E immunostaining; positive immunostaining was noted in 16 samples and negative immunostaining was noted in 4 samples, whereas 6 cases were equivocal. Of the 34 cases for which cell blocks were available for evaluation, BRAF p.V600E immunostaining was positive in 17 cases, negative in 16 cases, and equivocal in 1 case. The overall sensitivity and specificity of BRAF p.V600E immunostaining on the cell block preparation was 94.4% and 100%, respectively, whereas for the smears it was 80% and 63.6%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: BRAF p.V600E immunostaining can be performed reliably on thyroid FNA cell block preparations. However, false-positive results on direct smears limit their utility and therefore need to be interpreted with caution. Cancer Cytopathol 2018;126:406-13.
BACKGROUND: The identification of BRAF mutations in thyroid cancer has prognostic and therapeutic implications. Although the gold standard for identifying BRAF mutations is molecular testing, the ability to perform BRAFp.V600E immunostaining on fine-needle aspiration (FNA) samples can facilitate the rapid triaging of patients to treatment options. METHODS: A total of 50 thyroid carcinoma FNA samples, including papillary (29 samples), poorly differentiated (10 samples), anaplastic (9 samples), and Hurthle cell (2 samples) carcinomas, with a known BRAFp.V600E mutation status were selected for the current study. Immunostaining was performed on smears and cell block sections using an anti-BRAFp.V600E antibody (clone VE1). The results were compared with the known mutation status obtained by molecular testing and/or immunostaining of surgical pathology material from the same patient. RESULTS: Of the total of 50 cases, 26 cases had smears available for the evaluation of BRAFp.V600E immunostaining; positive immunostaining was noted in 16 samples and negative immunostaining was noted in 4 samples, whereas 6 cases were equivocal. Of the 34 cases for which cell blocks were available for evaluation, BRAFp.V600E immunostaining was positive in 17 cases, negative in 16 cases, and equivocal in 1 case. The overall sensitivity and specificity of BRAFp.V600E immunostaining on the cell block preparation was 94.4% and 100%, respectively, whereas for the smears it was 80% and 63.6%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS:BRAFp.V600E immunostaining can be performed reliably on thyroid FNA cell block preparations. However, false-positive results on direct smears limit their utility and therefore need to be interpreted with caution. Cancer Cytopathol 2018;126:406-13.
Authors: David C Shonka; Alan Ho; Ashish V Chintakuntlawar; Jessica L Geiger; Jong C Park; Nagashree Seetharamu; Sina Jasim; Amr H Abdelhamid Ahmed; Keith C Bible; Marcia S Brose; Maria E Cabanillas; Kirsten Dabekaussen; Louise Davies; Dora Dias-Santagata; James A Fagin; William C Faquin; Ronald A Ghossein; Raj K Gopal; Akira Miyauchi; Yuri E Nikiforov; Matthew D Ringel; Bruce Robinson; Mabel M Ryder; Eric J Sherman; Peter M Sadow; Jennifer J Shin; Brendan C Stack; R Michael Tuttle; Lori J Wirth; Mark E Zafereo; Gregory W Randolph Journal: Head Neck Date: 2022-03-11 Impact factor: 3.821
Authors: Jennifer R Wang; Mark E Zafereo; Ramona Dadu; Renata Ferrarotto; Naifa L Busaidy; Charles Lu; Salmaan Ahmed; Maria K Gule-Monroe; Michelle D Williams; Erich M Sturgis; Ryan P Goepfert; Neil D Gross; Stephen Y Lai; Gary Brandon Gunn; Jack Phan; David I Rosenthal; Clifton David Fuller; William H Morrison; Priyanka Iyer; Maria E Cabanillas Journal: Thyroid Date: 2019-08 Impact factor: 6.568
Authors: Vincent Vander Poorten; Nathan Goedseels; Asterios Triantafyllou; Alvaro Sanabria; Paul M Clement; Oded Cohen; Pawel Golusinski; Orlando Guntinas-Lichius; Cesare Piazza; Gregory W Randolph; Alessandra Rinaldo; Ohad Ronen; Maria E Cabanillas; Ashok R Shaha; Yong Teng; Ralph P Tufano; Michelle D Williams; Mark Zafereo; Alfio Ferlito Journal: Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) Date: 2022-09-20 Impact factor: 6.055
Authors: Keith C Bible; Electron Kebebew; James Brierley; Juan P Brito; Maria E Cabanillas; Thomas J Clark; Antonio Di Cristofano; Robert Foote; Thomas Giordano; Jan Kasperbauer; Kate Newbold; Yuri E Nikiforov; Gregory Randolph; M Sara Rosenthal; Anna M Sawka; Manisha Shah; Ashok Shaha; Robert Smallridge; Carol K Wong-Clark Journal: Thyroid Date: 2021-03 Impact factor: 6.568