Pei-Dong Chi1,2, Yi-Jun Liu1,2, Yu-Hua Huang1,3, Ming-Jie Mao1,2, Yu Wang1,4, Zhi-Ming Li1,4, Jian Li1,5. 1. Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong, P.R. China. 2. Department of Clinical Laboratory, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, Guangdong, P.R. China. 3. Department of Pathology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, Guangdong, P.R. China. 4. Department of Internal Medicine, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, Guangdong, P.R. China. 5. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Ultrasound, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, Guangdong, P.R. China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Conventional protocols utilize core needle biopsy (CNB) or fine needle aspiration (FNA) to produce cell suspension for flow cytometry (FCM) is a diagnostic challenge for lymphoid malignancies. We aim to develop an alternative CNB rinsing technique (RT) to produce cell suspension for FCM during this mini-invasive procedure of CNB for lymphoma diagnosis. METHODS: FNA and CNB specimens from the same lesion of 93 patients with suspected lymphoma were collected under the guidance of B-ultrasound simultaneously. The fresh CNB samples were prepared to cell suspension by RT for FCM immunophenotyping analysis (Group CNB-RT). Then, the CNB tissues after performing the RT process and the fresh FNA tissues were processed by conventional tissue cell suspension (TCS) technique to obtain the cell suspensions (Groups of CNB-TCS & FNA-TCS), respectively, as comparison. The diagnostic efficacies, as well as the concordances of the FCM results with reference to the morphologic diagnoses were compared in these three groups. RESULTS: RT could yield sufficient cells for FCM immunophenotyping analysis, though a lower cell numbers compared to TCS technique. The diagnostic concordance was comparable in group CNB-RT (91.1%) to the group CNB-TCS (88.9%) and group FNA-TCS (88.4%) (p = 0.819). The diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of CNB-RT (91.1%; 100%) was not inferior to that of CNB-TCS (88.9%; 100%) and FNA-TCS (88.4%; 98.8%). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows the CNB-RT presented non-inferior diagnostic concordance and efficacy as compared to the TCS technique. CNB-RT has the potential to produce cell suspension for FCM immunophenotyping while preserving tissue for lymphoma diagnosis and research.
BACKGROUND: Conventional protocols utilize core needle biopsy (CNB) or fine needle aspiration (FNA) to produce cell suspension for flow cytometry (FCM) is a diagnostic challenge for lymphoid malignancies. We aim to develop an alternative CNB rinsing technique (RT) to produce cell suspension for FCM during this mini-invasive procedure of CNB for lymphoma diagnosis. METHODS: FNA and CNB specimens from the same lesion of 93 patients with suspected lymphoma were collected under the guidance of B-ultrasound simultaneously. The fresh CNB samples were prepared to cell suspension by RT for FCM immunophenotyping analysis (Group CNB-RT). Then, the CNB tissues after performing the RT process and the fresh FNA tissues were processed by conventional tissue cell suspension (TCS) technique to obtain the cell suspensions (Groups of CNB-TCS & FNA-TCS), respectively, as comparison. The diagnostic efficacies, as well as the concordances of the FCM results with reference to the morphologic diagnoses were compared in these three groups. RESULTS: RT could yield sufficient cells for FCM immunophenotyping analysis, though a lower cell numbers compared to TCS technique. The diagnostic concordance was comparable in group CNB-RT (91.1%) to the group CNB-TCS (88.9%) and group FNA-TCS (88.4%) (p = 0.819). The diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of CNB-RT (91.1%; 100%) was not inferior to that of CNB-TCS (88.9%; 100%) and FNA-TCS (88.4%; 98.8%). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows the CNB-RT presented non-inferior diagnostic concordance and efficacy as compared to the TCS technique. CNB-RT has the potential to produce cell suspension for FCM immunophenotyping while preserving tissue for lymphoma diagnosis and research.
Authors: Jeffrey A Vos; Jerry H Simurdak; Brad J Davis; Jerome B Myers; Mark D Brissette Journal: Cytometry B Clin Cytom Date: 2003-03 Impact factor: 3.058
Authors: Jerald Z Gong; Matthew J Snyder; Anand S Lagoo; Robin T Vollmer; Raj R Dash; John F Madden; Patrick J Buckley; Claudia K Jones Journal: Diagn Cytopathol Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 1.582
Authors: Mohammad Al-Haddad; Mojgan Sara Savabi; Stuart Sherman; Lee McHenry; Julia Leblanc; Harvey Cramer; Robert Emerson; Jillian O'Neil; Mouen Khashab; John Dewitt Journal: J Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 4.029
Authors: H Tilly; U Vitolo; J Walewski; M Gomes da Silva; O Shpilberg; M André; M Pfreundschuh; M Dreyling Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: W A Mourad; A Tulbah; M Shoukri; F Al Dayel; M Akhtar; M A Ali; B Hainau; J Martin Journal: Diagn Cytopathol Date: 2003-04 Impact factor: 1.582