Correlating routine cytology, quantitative nuclear morphometry by digital image analysis, and genetic alterations by fluorescence in situ hybridization to assess the sensitivity of cytology for detecting pancreatobiliary tract malignancy.

Routine cytologic (RC), fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), digital image analysis (DIA), and quantifiable morphometric results from 284 pancreatobiliary stricture brushings were compared. We chose specific DIA nuclear features assessed by pathologists in evaluating RC specimens, such as area and shape. A visual nuclear morphometric score (VNMS) was calculated. There was a difference (P < .001) in the mean VNMS when RC results were classified as negative (11.5), atypical (12.5), suspicious (13.8), and positive (16.5). The mean VNMS of specimens diagnosed as disomy (11.3), trisomy 7 (12.1), and polysomy (14.7) by FISH was also different (P < .001). There was no difference in the VNMS of false-negative and true-negative cytologic specimens (P = .225). Our findings substantiate the relationship between cell nuclear visual alterations and genetic FISH abnormalities. The low sensitivity of cytologic examination for pancreatobiliary carcinoma is due to an absence of tumor cells or the presence of well-differentiated tumor lacking recognizable nuclear atypia.

[1]  G. Gores,et al.  Advanced cytologic techniques for the detection of malignant pancreatobiliary strictures. , 2006, Gastroenterology.

[2]  L. Layfield,et al.  Primary sclerosing cholangitis as a cause of false positive bile duct brushing cytology: Report of two cases. , 2005, Diagnostic cytopathology.

[3]  D. Tindall,et al.  p300 modulates nuclear morphology in prostate cancer. , 2005, Cancer research.

[4]  Daniele Zink,et al.  Nuclear structure in cancer cells , 2004, Nature Reviews Cancer.

[5]  T. Therneau,et al.  A Comparison of Routine Cytology and Fluorescence in situ Hybridization for the Detection of Malignant Bile Duct Strictures , 2004, The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

[6]  T. Baron,et al.  Prospective, Blinded Assessment of Factors Influencing the Accuracy of Biliary Cytology Interpretation , 2004, American Journal of Gastroenterology.

[7]  T. Therneau,et al.  A prospective comparison of digital image analysis and routine cytology for the identification of malignancy in biliary tract strictures. , 2004, Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association.

[8]  Robert W Veltri,et al.  Quantitative alterations in nuclear structure predict prostate carcinoma distant metastasis and death in men with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy , 2003, Cancer.

[9]  D. Faigel,et al.  Novel Markers of Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma in Fine-Needle Aspiration: Mesothelin and Prostate Stem Cell Antigen Labeling Increases Accuracy in Cytologically Borderline Cases , 2003, Applied immunohistochemistry & molecular morphology : AIMM.

[10]  A. Bergquist,et al.  Diagnosis of biliary strictures in conjunction with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreaticography, with special reference to patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis. , 2002, Endoscopy.

[11]  V. Reddy,et al.  Brush cytology of the biliary tract: Retrospective study of 278 cases with histopathologic correlation , 2002, Diagnostic cytopathology.

[12]  S. Krishnamurthy,et al.  DNA image analysis combined with routine cytology improves diagnostic sensitivity of common bile duct brushing , 2001, Cancer.

[13]  R. Carter,et al.  Brush cytology in the assessment of pancreatico–biliary strictures: a review of 406 cases , 2001, Journal of clinical pathology.

[14]  T. Therneau,et al.  Improved diagnostic yield of endoscopic biliary brush cytology by digital image analysis. , 2001, Mayo Clinic proceedings.

[15]  D J O'Kane,et al.  A comparison of cytology and fluorescence in situ hybridization for the detection of urothelial carcinoma. , 2000, The Journal of urology.

[16]  K. Block,et al.  Analysis of false-negative diagnoses on endoscopic brush cytology of biliary and pancreatic duct strictures: the experience at 2 university hospitals. , 2000, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[17]  R W Veltri,et al.  Quantitative nuclear grade (QNG): A new image analysis‐based biomarker of clinically relevant nuclear structure alterations , 2000, Journal of cellular biochemistry. Supplement.

[18]  G. Tytgat,et al.  Value of brush cytology for dominant strictures in primary sclerosing cholangitis , 1998, Endoscopy.

[19]  C Decaestecker,et al.  Image cytometry as a discriminatory tool for cytologic specimens obtained by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography , 1998, Cancer.

[20]  G. Kocjan,et al.  Bile duct brushings cytology: Potential pitfalls in diagnosis , 1997, Diagnostic cytopathology.

[21]  P. Cotton,et al.  Accuracy and morphologic aspects of pancreatic and biliary duct brushings. , 1996, Acta cytologica.

[22]  I Salmon,et al.  Multiparameter digital image analysis of biliary, ampullary, and pancreatic adenocarcinomas. , 1995, Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc.

[23]  T. Sebo,et al.  Digital image analysis. , 1995, Mayo Clinic proceedings.

[24]  A. Marchevsky,et al.  Lymphoid-rich effusions. Diagnosis by morphometry using the CAS 200 System. , 1994, American journal of clinical pathology.

[25]  R. Kiss,et al.  Use of cell image analysis in the detection of cancer from specimens obtained during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. , 1993, American journal of clinical pathology.