Challenges in the interpretation of peritoneal cytologic specimens

Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine

Volumn 133, Issue 5, 2009, Pages 739-742

  Lin, Oscar ^a  

^a MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING CANCER CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CA 125 ANTIGEN; CA 19-9 ANTIGEN; CALRETININ; CYTOKERATIN 5; CYTOKERATIN 6; MESOTHELIN; MONOCLONAL ANTIBODY D2-40; WT1 PROTEIN; TUMOR MARKER;

ADENOCARCINOMA; ARTICLE; ASCITES FLUID CYTOLOGY; DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS; FLOW CYTOMETRY; HUMAN; IMMUNOCYTOCHEMISTRY; IMMUNOREACTIVITY; MESOTHELIUM CELL; PROTEIN EXPRESSION; ASCITES FLUID; CANCER STAGING; CYTODIAGNOSIS; EPITHELIUM CELL; FEMALE; FEMALE GENITAL TRACT TUMOR; METABOLISM; METHODOLOGY; PATHOLOGY; PERITONEUM LAVAGE; REVIEW;

ADENOCARCINOMA; ASCITIC FLUID; CYTODIAGNOSIS; EPITHELIAL CELLS; FEMALE; GENITAL NEOPLASMS, FEMALE; HUMANS; NEOPLASM STAGING; PERITONEAL LAVAGE; TUMOR MARKERS, BIOLOGICAL;

EID: 65649105791     PISSN: 00039985     EISSN: 15432165     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (63)

1. Tauchi PS, Caraway N, Truong LD, Kaplan AL, Ramzy I. Serous surface carcinoma of the peritoneum: useful role of cytology in differential diagnosis and follow-up. Acta Cytol. 1996;40:429-436.
2. Ducatman BBS, Soisson AAP. Peritoneal washing cytology: how significant? Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1997;121:923-924.
3. Zuna RE, Behrens A. Peritoneal washing cytology in gynecologic cancers: long-term follow-up of 355 patients. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1996;88:980-987.
4. Mulvany N. Cytohistologic correlation in malignant peritoneal washings: analysis of 75 malignant fluids. Acta Cytol. 1996;40:1231-1239.
5. Willett GD. Prognostic value of cytologic peritoneal washings. Clin Lab Med. 1985;5:265-274.
6. Mathew S, Erozan YS. Significance of peritoneal washings in gynecologic oncology: the experience with 901 intraoperative washings at an academic medical center. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1997;121:604-606.
7. Benevolo MM, Mariani LL, Vocaturo GG, Vasselli SS, Natali PPG, Mottolese MM. Independent prognostic value of peritoneal immunocytodiagnosis in endo-metrial carcinoma. Am JSurg Pathol. 2000;24:241-247.
8. Ebina Y, Hareyama H, Sakuragh N, et al. Peritoneal cytology and its prognostic value in endometrial carcinoma. Int Surg. 1997;82:244-248.
9. Ayhan A, Taskiran C, Celik C, Aksu T, Yuce K. Surgical stage III endometrial cancer: analysis of treatment outcomes, prognostic factors and failure patterns.Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2002;23:553-556.
10. Lee A, Baloch ZW, Yu G, Gupta PK. Mesothelial hyperplasia with reactive atypia: diagnostic pitfalls and role of immunohistochemical studies-a case report. Diagn Cytopathol. 2000;22:113-116.
11. Zuna RE, Mitchell ML, Mulick KA, Weijchert WM. Cytohistologic correlation of peritoneal washing cytology in gynecologic disease. Acta Cytol. 1989;33:327-336.
12. Ziselman EM, Harkavy SE, Hogan M, WestW, Atkinson B. Peritoneal washing cytology: uses and diagnostic criteria in gynecologic neoplasms. Acta Cytol.1984;28:105-110.
13. Fanning J, Markuly SN, Hindman TL, et al. False positive malignant peritoneal cytology and psammoma bodies in benign gynecologic disease. J Reprod Med. 1996;41:504-508.
14. Sneige N, Fanning CV. Peritoneal washing cytology in women: diagnostic pitfalls and clues for correct diagnosis. Diagn Cytopathol. 1992;8:632-640, discussion 640-632.
15. Ravinsky E. Cytology of peritoneal washings in gynecologic patients: diagnostic criteria and pitfalls. Acta Cytol. 1986;30:8-16.
16. Gammon R, Hameed A, Keyhani-Rofagha S. Peritoneal washing in borderline epithelial ovarian tumors in women under 25: the use of cell block preparations. Diagn Cytopathol. 1998;18:212-214.
17. Fetsch PA, Abati A, Hijazi YM. Utility of the antibodies CA 19-9, HBME-1, and thrombomodulin in the diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma and adenocarcinoma in cytology. Cancer. 1998;84:101-108.
18. Fetsch PA, Simsir A, Abati A. Comparison of antibodies to HBME-1 and calretinin for the detection of mesothelial cells in effusion cytology. Diagn Cy-topathol. 2001;25:158-161.
19. Bassarova AV, Nesland JM, Davidson B. D2-40 is not a specific marker for cells of mesothelial origin in serous effusions. Am J Surg Pathol. 2006;30:878-882.
20. Bhalla R, Siddiqui MT, Mandich D, et al. Diagnostic utility of D2-40 and podoplanin in effusion cell blocks. Diagn Cytopathol. 2007;35:342-347.
21. Chu AY, Litzky LA, Pasha TL, Acs G, Zhang PJ. Utility of D2-40, a novelmesothelial marker, in the diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma. Mod Pathol.2005;18:105-110.
22. Lyons-Boudreaux V, Mody DR, Zhai J, Coffey D. Cytologic malignancy versus benignancy: how useful are the "newer" markers in body fluid cytology?Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2008;132:23-28.
23. Muller AM, Franke FE, Muller KM. D2-40: a reliable marker in the diagnosis of pleural mesothelioma. Pathobiology. 2006;73:50-54.
24. Ordonez NG. The diagnostic utility ofimmunohistochemistry and electron microscopy in distinguishing between peritoneal mesotheliomas and serous carcinomas: a comparative study. Mod Pathol. 2006;19:34-48.
25. Saad RS, Lindner JL, Lin X, Liu YL, Silverman JF. The diagnostic utility of D2-40 for malignant mesothelioma versus pulmonary carcinoma with pleuralinvolvement. Diagn Cytopathol. 2006;34:801-806.
26. Chhieng DC, Yee H, Schaefer D, et al. Calretinin staining pattern aids in the differentiation of mesothelioma from adenocarcinoma in serous effusions.Cancer. 2000;90:194-200.
27. Comin CE, Novelli L, Boddi V, Paglierani M, Dini S. Calretinin, thrombo- modulin, CEA, and CD15: a useful combination of immunohistochemical markers for differentiating pleural epithelial mesothelioma from peripheral pulmonary adenocarcinoma. Hum Pathol. 2001;32:529-536.
28. Comin CECE, Saieva CC, Messerini LL. h-caldesmon, calretinin, estrogen receptor, and Ber-EP4: a useful combination of immunohistochemical markers for differentiating epithelioid peritoneal mesothelioma from serous papillary carcinoma of the ovary. Am J Surg Pathol. 2007;31:1139-1148.
29. Cook DS, Attanoos RL, Jalloh SS, Gibbs AR. 'Mucin-positive' epithelial mesothelioma of the peritoneum: an unusual diagnostic pitfall. Histopathology.2000;37:33-36.
30. Kitazume H, Kitamura K, Mukai K, et al. Cytologic differential diagnosis among reactive mesothelial cells, malignantmesothelioma, and adenocarcinoma: utility of combined E-cadherin and calretinin immunostaining. Cancer. 2000;90:55-60.
31. Ko EC, Jhala NC, Shultz JJ, Chhieng DC. Use of a panel of markers in the differential diagnosis of adenocarcinoma and reactive mesothelial cells in fluidcytology. Am J Clin Pathol. 2001;116:709-715.
32. Lozano MD, Panizo A, Toledo GR, Sola JJ, Pardo-Mindan J. Immunocyto- chemistry in the differential diagnosis of serous effusions: a comparative evaluation of eight monoclonal antibodies in Papanicolaou stained smears. Cancer.2001;93:68-72.
33. Nagel H, Hemmerlein B, Ruschenburg I, Huppe K, Droese M. The value of anti-calretinin antibody in the differential diagnosis of normal and reactive mesothelia versus metastatic tumors in effusion cytology. Pathol Res Pract. 1998;194:759-764.
34. Okamoto SS, Ito KK, Sasano HH, et al. Ber-EP4 and anti-calretinin antibodies: a useful combination for differential diagnosis ofvarious histological types of ovarian cancer cells and mesothelial cells. Tohoku J Exp Med. 2005;206:31-40.
35. Politi E, Kandaraki C, Apostolopoulou C, Kyritsi T, Koutselini H. Immuno- cytochemical panel for distinguishing between carcinoma and reactive mesothe- lial cells in body cavity fluids. Diagn Cytopathol. 2005;32:1 51-1 55.
36. Roberts F, Harper CM, Downie I, Burnett RA. Immunohistochemical analysis still has a limited role in the diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma: a study of thirteen antibodies. Am J Clin Pathol. 2001;116:253-262.
37. Sato S, Okamoto S, Ito K, Konno R, Yajima A. Differential diagnosis of mesothelial and ovarian cancer cells in ascites by immunocytochemistry singBer-EP4 and calretinin. Acta Cytol. 2000;44:485-488.
38. Simsir A, Fetsch P, Mehta D, Zakowski M, Abati A. E-cadherin, N-cadherin, and calretinin in pleural effusions: the good, the bad, the worthless. Diagn Cy-topathol. 1999;20:125-130.
39. Wieczorek TJ, Krane JF. Diagnostic utility of calretinin immunohistochem- istry in cytologic cell block preparations. Cancer. 2000;90:312-319.
40. Yaziji H, Battifora H, Barry TS, et al. Evaluation of 12 antibodies for distinguishing epithelioid mesothelioma from adenocarcinoma: identification of a three-antibody immunohistochemical panel with maximal sensitivity and specificity. Mod Pathol. 2006;1 9:514-523.
41. Hwang H, Quenneville L, Yaziji H, Gown AM. Wilms tumor gene product: sensitive and contextually specific marker of serous carcinomas of ovarian surface epithelial origin. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2004;12:122-126.
42. Marchevsky AM, Wick MR. Evidence-based guidelines for the utilization of immunostains in diagnostic pathology: pulmonary adenocarcinoma versus me- sothelioma. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2007;15:140-144.
43. Attanoos RL, Dojcinov SD, Webb R, Gibbs AR. Anti-mesothelial markers in sarcomatoid mesothelioma and other spindle cell neoplasms. Histopathology.2000;37:224-231.
44. Ordonez NG. Value of mesothelin immunostaining in the diagnosis ofme-sothelioma. Mod Pathol. 2003;16:192-197.
45. Ascoli V, Carnovale-Scalzo C, Taccogna S, Nardi F. Utility of HBME-1 im- munostaining in serous effusions. Cytopathology. 1997;8:328-335.
46. Bateman AC, al-Talib RK, Newman T, Williams JH, Herbert A. Immuno- histochemical phenotype of malignant mesothelioma: predictive value of CA125and HBME-1 expression. Histopathology1997;30:49-56.
47. Gonzalez-Lois C, Ballestin C, Sotelo MT, Lopez-Rios F, Garcia-Prats MD, Villena V. Combined use of novel epithelial (MOC-31) and mesothelial (HBME-1) immunohistochemical markers for optimal first line diagnostic distinction between mesothelioma and metastatic carcinoma in pleura. Histopathology. 2001;38:528-534.
48. Gumurdulu D, Zeren EH, Cagle PT, et al. Specificity of MOC-31 and HBME-1 immunohistochemistry in the differential diagnosis of adenocarcinoma and malignant mesothelioma: a study on environmental malignantmesotheliomacases from Turkish villages. Pathol Oncol Res. 2002;8:188-193.
49. Ueda J, IwataT, Ono M, Takahashi M. Comparison ofthree cytologic preparation methods and immunocytochemistries to distinguish adenocarcinomacells from reactive mesothelial cells in serous effusion. Diagn Cytopathol. 2006;34:6-10.
50. Reid-Nicholson M, Iyengar P, Hummer AJ, Linkov I, Asher M, Soslow RA. Immunophenotypic diversity of endometrial adenocarcinomas: implications fordifferential diagnosis. Mod Pathol. 2006;19:1091-1100.
51. McCluggage WG, Sumathi VP, McBride HA, Patterson A. A panel of im- munohistochemical stains, including carcinoembryonic antigen, vimentin, and estrogen receptor, aids the distinction between primary endometrial and endo- cervical adenocarcinomas. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2002;21:11-15.
52. Castrillon DH, Lee KR, Nucci MR. Distinction between endometrial and endocervical adenocarcinoma: an immunohistochemical study. Int J GynecolPathol. 2002;21:4-10.
53. Torenbeek R, Lagendijk JH, Van Diest PJ, Bril H, van de Molengraft FJ, Meijer CJ. Value of a panel of antibodies to identify the primary origin of ade- nocarcinomas presenting as bladder carcinoma. Histopathology. 1998;32:20-27.
54. Lagendijk JH, Mullink H, Van Diest PJ, Meijer GA, Meijer CJ. Tracing the origin of adenocarcinomas with unknown primary using immunohistochemistry: differential diagnosis between colonic and ovarian carcinomas as primary sites.Hum Pathol. 1998;29:491-497.
55. Dejmek A, Hjerpe A. Reactivity of six antibodies in effusions of mesothe- lioma, adenocarcinoma and mesotheliosis: stepwise logistic regression analysis.Cytopathology. 2000;11:8-17.
56. Queiroz C, Barral-Netto M, Bacchi CE. Characterizing subpopulations of neoplastic cells in serous effusions: the role of immunocytochemistry. Acta Cytol.2001;45:18-22.
57. Nap M. Immunohistochemistry of CA 125. Unusual expression in normal tissues, distribution in the human fetus and questions around its application in diagnostic pathology. Int J Biol Markers. 1998;13:210-215.
58. Hecht JL, Pinkus JL, Pinkus GS. Monoclonal antibody MOC-31 reactivity as a marker for adenocarcinoma in cytologic preparations. Cancer. 2006;108:56-59.
59. Morgan RL, De Young BR, McGaughy VR, Niemann TH. MOC-31 aids in the differentiation between adenocarcinoma and reactive mesothelial cells. Cancer. 1999;87:390-394.
60. Selvaggi SM. Diagnostic pitfalls of peritoneal washing cytology and the role of cell blocks in their diagnosis. Diagn Cytopathol. 2003;28:335-341.
61. Finn CB, Ward K, Luesley DM, Dunn JA, Redman CW. Qualitative and quantitative analysis of peritoneal fluids from women with gynecologic diseases: comparison of cytology and flow cytometry for the detection of malignancy in lavage and ascitic fluids. Anal Quant Cytol Histol. 1991;13:182-186.
62. Dong HP, Holth A, Berner A, Davidson B, Risberg B. Flow cytometric immunphenotyping of epithelial cancer cells in effusions-technical considerations and pitfalls. Cytometry B Clin Cytom. 2007;72:332-343.
63. Holloway AJ, Diyagama DS, Opeskin K, et al. A molecular diagnostic test for distinguishing lung adenocarcinoma from malignantmesothelioma usingcells collected from pleural effusions. Clin Cancer Res. 2006;12:5129-5135.