| Literature DB >> 31508437 |
Krithiga Kuppusamy1, Aarathi Rajan1, Aarathy Warrier1, Revathy Nadhan1, Dipyaman Patra1, Priya Srinivas1.
Abstract
Human breast cancers (HBCs) are one of the leading causes of global cancer death among women. Domesticated canines are the most affected domestic species with a prevalence rate of breast cancer more than three times in women. While the human cancer patients receive substantial diagnostic and treatment facilities, inadequacy in canine cancer care, calls for greater attention. Fine Needle Aspiration Cytology (FNAC) is comparatively simple, quick, and easily reproducible technique, which aids in pre-surgical diagnosis. In humans, FNAC has a standard protocol, the Robinson's grading system, which has high correlation with the established histological grading system of Scarff Bloom- Richardson. However, Canine Mammary Tumors (CMTs), which are known to be similar to HBCs in biological behavior and gene expressions, still bank on the histopathological methods for diagnostic purposes. This review sheds light on various factors that could be considered for developing a standard FNAC technique for CMT grading and analyzes its future perspectives.Entities:
Keywords: breast; canine; cytology; grading; human; tumor
Year: 2019 PMID: 31508437 PMCID: PMC6718613 DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2019.00283
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Vet Sci ISSN: 2297-1769
Cytological grading methods for human breast cancers.
| 1980, Fisher's modified Black ( | Nuclear characteristics like size, membrane contour, anisonucleosis, chromatin, and nucleoli | Powerful indicator of tumor aggressiveness when combined with histological type and race of patient ( | Variation in nuclear size due to unavoidable air-drying during smear preparation, time consuming and more subjective ( |
| 1986, Mouriquand ( | Cellular characteristics, nuclear features, nucleoli, and number of mitoses | Provide insights into disease free interval and early relapse, concordant with SBR (Scarff-Bloom—Richardson's) histological grading ( | Difficult to score and has low specificity ( |
| 1990, Hunt ( | Nuclear diameter, nuclear pleomorphism and presence of nucleoli. Similar to Fisher but there is scoring for nuclear features | The classification of tumors into high and low cytological grades which showed a close correlation with histological grade ( | Insufficient categorization when compared to Modified Bloom Richardson histological grading ( |
| 1994, Robinson ( | Cell dissociation, cell size, cell uniformity, nuclear margin, nuclear chromatin, and nucleolus | Simple, easier, and reproducible technique which correlated with the histological grade ( | Mild nuclear pleomorphism and cell dyscohesion could be reasons for discrepancies during grading, mitotic count not considered ( |
| 1994, Howell ( | Tubule formation, nuclear pleomorphism, and mitoses | Predictable, reproducible with greater correlation with histology ( | Difficulty in identification of tubules and mitoses in cytological smears ( |
| 1998, Yu ( | Dyscohesion of cells, nuclear grading method used by Dabbs and Silverman ( | Statistical significance between dyscohesion and distant metastasis, slide fixation did not pose a problem | Nuclear grading and cellular dyscohesion score not combined, degree of dyscohesion not correlated with regional metastasis, no significant relationship between dyscohesion. and nuclear grading, mechanical interference due to smearing and difference in dyscohesion in different areas of the slide ( |
| 2000. Taniguichi ( | Cell size, nuclear/cytoplasmic ratio, nuclear pleomorphism, nucleoli, chromatin granularity, density of chromatin, hyperchromatic, necrosis | Positive correlation with histological grade ( | Has not been worked upon by any other study group ( |
| 2003, Khan ( | Pleomorphism, nuclear size and margin, nucleoli, naked tumor nuclei, mitotic count, cellularity, cell dispersion, lymphocytic response | Nuclear size statistically significant and pleomorphism plays a discriminatory role ( | Cell dispersion that varies due to smear preparation and mitotic count that is sparse in cytological smears due to the meager amount of aspirate used and fragility of the cells ( |
| 2006, Fan ( | Nuclear grade, cellular dyscohesion, and bare atypical nuclei | Cytoprognostic score correlated with lymph node metastasis and ER and PR expression, correlated with histological grade ( | Time consuming ( |
Robinson's cytological grading of HBCs (26).
| Dissociation | Cells mostly in clusters | Mixture of single and cell clusters | Cells mostly single |
| Cell size | 1–2 X Red blood cells (RBC) size | 3–4 X RBC size | >5 X RBC size |
| Cell uniformity | Monomorphic | Mildly pleomorphic | Pleomorphic |
| Nucleoli | Indistinct | Noticeable | Prominent or pleomorphic |
| Nuclear margin | Smooth | Folds | Buds/clefts |
| Chromatin | Vesicular | Granular | Clumped and cleared |
Grade 1 = score 6–11; Grade 2 = score 12–14; Grade 3 = score 15–18.
Figure 1Different types of tumors and the cytological parameters currently used in canines for differentiating malignant and benign tumors.
Scoring system for the cytological samples of CMT (42).
| Cellularity | Scanty 10–20 cells/High Power Field (HPF- 40x objective) | Moderate 20–50 cells/HPF | Abundant > 50 cells/HPF | |
| Cell dissociation (clusters) | Clusters > 5/10 HPF, single epithelial cells <25% of neoplastic cells | Clusters 3–4/10 HPF, single cells 25–75% of neoplastic cells | Clusters 1–2/10 HPF, mostly single cells more than 75% | |
| Mucosecretory material, foamy macrophages | Absent/1–2 cells/HPF | Mild, 3–4 cells/HPF | Moderate, 5–10 cells/HPF | Abundant > 10 cells/HPF |
| Extracellular matrix | Absent | Mild | Moderate | Abundant |
| Necrotic debris | Absent | Mild | Moderate | Abundant |
| Inflammation | Absent, 1–2 single cells/HPF | Occasional, 3–4 cells/HPF | Moderate, 5–10 cells/HPF | Abundant > 10 cells/HPF |
| Red blood corpuscles/red blood cells | Absent/single 1–2 cells/HPF | Occasional 3–4 cells/HPF | Moderate 5–10 cells/HPF | Abundant > 10 cells/HPF |
Factors that are to be considered while standardizing the protocol.
| 1. | Intra and inter observer variation should be considered while standardizing the score card ( |
| 2. | Subjective variation due to the experience of cytopathologist in aspects of judging factors like pleomorphism, nuclear to cytoplasmic ratio, etc. |
| 3. | Factors such as nuclear size, the appearance of chromatin, and cell clustering which are variable due to smear preparation and fixation ( |
| 4. | Sampling from different areas of a tumor should be done to avoid discrepancies |
| 5. | It is necessary to compare the cytological grading with that of histopathological grading |
| 6. | Regional lymph nodes can be examined adjunct to the tumor using FNAC to ascertain metastasis |
| 7. | The case details and follow-up after surgery should be meticulously recorded |
| 8. | The different grading systems used in the HBCs grading can be attempted as such or modified as per requirement |
| 9. | FNAC does not give details about |
| 10. | The yield of cells in sclerotic masses will be less hampering the diagnosis |
| 11. | The thread line of difference between the low-grade tumors and the benign counterpart should be critically analyzed |
Suggested score card for grading canine mammary tumors with inputs from Robinson's, Khan's, Taniguchi's, Howell's grading systems and Bonzanini et al. (44).
| Cellularity/40x | 10–20 cells | 20–50 cells | >50 cells |
| Cell dissociation | Mostly in clusters | Cluster and single cells | Single cells |
| Syncytia formation/ 10X | 1–2 | 2–4 | More than 5 |
| Cell size | 1–2x red cell size | 3–4x red cell size | ≥5x red cell size |
| Cell uniformity | Monomorphic/mild pleomorphism | Moderate pleomorphism | Marked pleomorphism |
| Nuclear margin | Smooth | Irregular | Budding/clefts |
| Nuclear size | Uniform/ <3x Red cell size | 3–5x red cell size | ≥5x red cell size |
| Nucleoli | Indistinct | Noticeable | Prominent |
| Nuclear pleomorphism | Absent | Mild to moderate | Marked |
| Chromatin | Fine | Moderately granular | Coarse |
| Mitotic count/40X | Absent | 1–2 | More than 3 |
| Naked tumor nuclei | <3x red cell size | 3–5x red cell size | ≥5x red cell size |
| Necrosis | Mild | Moderate | Marked |
| Inflammatory cells/40X | 3–4 cells | 5–10 cells | >10 cells |
| Tubule formation | Marked | Moderate | Mild/absent |
Grade 1- score 10–15; Grade 2- score 16–30; Grade 3- score 31–45. Syncytia- cell cluster with inconspicuous intercellular membrane and overlapping of nucleus. Tubule formation- cell cluster in which the cells are polarized forming tubule or gland like structures.
Figure 2Illustration depicting the appearance of cells that could be considered for different cytological grades in CMT.