Analysis of loss of heterozygosity in atypical and negative bile duct brushing cytology specimens with malignant outcome: Are "false- negative" cytologic findings a representation of morphologically subtle molecular alterations?

Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine

Volumn 131, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 74-80

  Krishnamurti, Uma ^a,b   Sasatomi, Eizaburo ^a   Swalsky, Patricia A ^a,c   Finkelstein, Sydney D ^a,c   Ohori, N Paul ^a  

^a PRESBYTERIAN UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (United States)

^b WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA HOSPITAL   (United States)

^c Redpath Integrated Pathology Inc   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

K RAS PROTEIN;

ADENOCARCINOMA; ADULT; AGED; ALLELE; ARTICLE; BILE DUCT; BILE DUCT CARCINOMA; CHROMOSOME 10Q; CHROMOSOME 17P; CHROMOSOME 1P; CHROMOSOME 22Q; CHROMOSOME 3P; CHROMOSOME 5P; CHROMOSOME 9P; CHROMOSOME 9Q; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CYTOLOGY; CYTOPATHOLOGY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; FEMALE; GENE MUTATION; HETEROZYGOSITY LOSS; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; MALE; MICRODISSECTION; MICROSATELLITE MARKER; MOLECULAR BIOLOGY; MORPHOLOGY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PILOT STUDY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

ADENOCARCINOMA; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ALLELES; BILE DUCT NEOPLASMS; DNA, NEOPLASM; FALSE NEGATIVE REACTIONS; FEMALE; GENE EXPRESSION REGULATION, NEOPLASTIC; GENES, RAS; HUMANS; LOSS OF HETEROZYGOSITY; MALE; MICROSATELLITE REPEATS; MIDDLE AGED; MUTATION; PILOT PROJECTS; PROGNOSIS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 33846648625     PISSN: 00039985     EISSN: 15432165     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Govil H, Reddy V, Kluskens L, et al. Brush cytology of the biliary tract: retrospective study of 278 cases with histopathologic correlation. Diagn Cytopathol. 2002;26:273-277.
2. Ylagan LR, Liu LH, Maluf HM. Endoscopic bile duct brushing of malignant pancreatic biliary strictures: retrospective study with comparison of conventional smear and ThinPrep techniques. Diagn Cytopathol. 2003;28:196-204.
3. Ohori NP, Fowler MH, Swalsky PA, Pal R, Finkelstein SD. Comparative molecular analysis of loss of heterozygosity in adenocarcinoma in bile duct brushings and corresponding bile duct brushings and corresponding surgical pathology specimens. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol). 2003;99:379-384.
4. Bardales RH, Stanley MW, Simpson DD, et al. Diagnostic value of brush cytology in the diagnosis of duodenal, biliary, and ampullary neoplasms. Am J Clin Pathol. 1998;109:540-548.
5. Sasatomi E, Finkelstein SD, Woods JD, et al. Comparison of accumulated allele loss between primary tumor and lymph node metastasis in stage II non-small cell lung carcinoma: implications for the timing of lymph node metastasis and prognostic value. Cancer Res. 2002;62:2681-2689.
6. Jaffee EM, Hruban RH, Canto M, Kern SE. Focus on pancreas cancer. Cancer Cell. 2002;2:25-28.
7. Bardeesy N, DePinho RA. Pancreatic cancer biology and genetics. Nat Rev Cancer. 2002;2:897-909.
8. Kocjan G, Nisbet Smith A. Bile duct brushings cytology: potential pitfalls in diagnosis. Diagn Cytopathol. 1997;16:358-363.
9. Renshaw AA, Madge R, Jirouteck M, Granter SR. Bile duct brushing cytology: statistical analysis of proposed diagnostic criteria. Am J Clin Pathol. 1998; 110:635-640.
10. Logrono R, Kurtycz DF, Molina CP, Trivedi VA, Wong JY, Block KP. Analysis of false-negative diagnoses on endoscopic brush cytology of biliary and pancreatic duct strictures. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2000;124:387-392.
11. Krishnamurthy S, Katz RL, Shumate A, et al. DNA image analysis combined with routine cytology improves diagnostic sensitivity of common bile duct brushing. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol). 2001;93:229-235.
12. Van Laethem JL, Bourgeois V, Parma J, et al. Relative contribution of Ki-ras gene analysis and brush cytology during ERCP for the diagnosis of biliary and pancreatic diseases. Gastrointest Endosc. 1998;47:479-485.
13. Dillon DA, Johnson CC, Topazian MD, Tallini G, Rimm DL, Costa JC. The utility of Ki-ras mutation analysis in the cytologic diagnosis of pancreatobiliary neoplasma. Cancer J. 2000;5:294-301.
14. Van Laethem JL. Ki-ras oncogene mutations in chronic pancreatitis: which discriminating ability for malignant potential? Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1999;880:210-218.
15. Kipp BR, Stadheim LM, Halling SA, et al. A comparison of routine cytology and fluorescence in situ hybridization for the detection of malignant bile duct strictures. Am J Gastroenterol. 2004;99:1675-1681.
16. Khalid A, Pal R, Sasatomi E, et al. Use of microsatellite marker loss of heterozygosity in accurate diagnosis of pancreaticobiliary malignancy from brush cytology samples. Gut. 2004;53:1860-1865.
17. Sasatomi E, Johnson LR, Aldeeb DN, et al. Genetic profile of cumulative mutational damage associated with early pulmonary adenocarcinoma: bronchioloalveolar carcinoma vs. stage I invasive adenocarcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2004;28:1280-1288.
18. Tomono H, Nimura Y, Aono K, Nakashima I, Iwamoto T, Nakashima N. Point mutations of the Ki-ras gene in carcinoma and atypical epithelium associated with congenital biliary dilatation. Am J Gastroentrol. 1996;91:1211-1214.