Gómez-Peñaloza Catalina, Serrano-Arévalo Mónica L, Villegas-González Lidia F, Flores-Hernández Lorena, Lino-Silva Leonardo S, Ruiz-García Erika B, Diaz-Chávez José
Department of Cytopathology, Instituto Nacional de Cancerología, México City, México.
Department of Surgical Pathology, Instituto Nacional de Cancerología, México City, México.
Cytopathology. 2019 Sep;30(5):485-491. doi: 10.1111/cyt.12697. Epub 2019 Apr 23.
Pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PAC) is a health problem because of high lethality, increasing incidence and the absence of an early diagnosis. Biopsy by fine needle aspiration guided by endoscopic ultrasound has allowed obtaining tissue for cytopathological analysis, but there are several problems with their interpretation. We aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of the cytopathological analysis with the addition of either an immunohistochemical (IHC) panel or the KRAS mutation for the diagnosis of PAC.
We evaluated 62 pancreatic lesions by fine needle aspiration guided by endoscopic ultrasound, applying an IHC panel with mucin (MUC)-1, MUC4, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and p53. All cases also had a KRAS mutation determination. Three cytopathologists blinded to clinical data and the KRAS status reviewed the cytology independently. We calculated diagnostic performances for the cytology alone, cytology+IHC and cytology+KRAS to show the best method to diagnose PAC.
From 62 samples, 50 (80.6%) were PAC and 12 benign lesions. The cytopathological analysis correctly interpreted 26 malignant and 12 non-neoplastic cases (sensitivity 52%, specificity 100% and diagnostic accuracy 61.3%). The KRAS mutation was present in 88% of PAC. The cytology+ KRAS mutation increased the sensitivity by 10% and the diagnostic accuracy by 8%. The sensitivity increased by 2% adding either MUC1 or CEA to the cytology, and the diagnostic accuracy by 10 or 18%, respectively.
The addition of IHC either with CEA or MUC1 improved the diagnostic performance of the cytology alone to diagnose PAC. The cytology + IHC evaluation was superior to the cytology + KRAS mutation to diagnose PAC.
胰腺腺癌(PAC)因其高致死率、发病率上升且缺乏早期诊断方法,成为一个健康问题。在内镜超声引导下进行细针穿刺活检能够获取组织用于细胞病理学分析,但在解读方面存在一些问题。我们旨在比较细胞病理学分析联合免疫组织化学(IHC)检测组合或KRAS基因突变检测在PAC诊断中的诊断效能。
我们通过内镜超声引导下细针穿刺评估了62个胰腺病变,应用包含黏蛋白(MUC)-1、MUC4、癌胚抗原(CEA)和p53的IHC检测组合。所有病例也都进行了KRAS基因突变检测。三位对临床数据和KRAS状态不知情的细胞病理学家独立审查细胞学结果。我们计算了单独细胞学检查、细胞学+IHC以及细胞学+KRAS的诊断效能,以找出诊断PAC的最佳方法。
62个样本中,50个(80.6%)为PAC,12个为良性病变。细胞病理学分析正确解读了26个恶性病例和12个非肿瘤性病例(敏感性52%,特异性100%,诊断准确性61.3%)。88%的PAC存在KRAS基因突变。细胞学+KRAS基因突变使敏感性提高了10%,诊断准确性提高了8%。在细胞学检查中添加MUC1或CEA,敏感性分别提高了2%,诊断准确性分别提高了10%或18%。
添加CEA或MUC1的IHC检测提高了单独细胞学检查诊断PAC的诊断效能。细胞学+IHC评估在诊断PAC方面优于细胞学+KRAS基因突变检测。