Statistical analysis of diagnostic failure of fine needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) in breast cancer

An online quiz uncovers limitations of morphology in equivocal lung cytology

BACKGROUND

Equivocal atypia in respiratory cytology can be a diagnostic challenge. In such cases fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) may be used for the analysis of chromosomal aberrations and often allows a reliable distinction of benign and malignant cells.

METHODS

An online picture gallery of 30 respiratory cytologic preparations comprising 23 specimens with equivocal cytology as well as 5 positive and 2 negative controls was prepared (www.unibas.ch/patho/lungenzyto/loesung). The final diagnoses were confirmed by clinical follow-up or biopsy or both. Each of the illustrated cell groups was analyzed by multitarget FISH after PAP image capturing and automatic relocalization.

RESULTS

The online questionnaire was completed by 137 cytomorphologists from all continents. The control cases were assessed accurately to a significantly higher percentage than the equivocal cases. In equivocal cases participants more often made false-positive than false-negative diagnoses. In 2 patients with benign conditions (tuberculosis and pulmonary capillaritis) the rate of false-positive answers was remarkably high (31.4% and 62.8% respectively). The result of the 20 best-performing participants for the 5 cases with the highest percentage of inaccurate answers was not better than if they had chosen their answer by chance.

CONCLUSIONS

These data illustrate that single cells or cell clusters of a subgroup of equivocal lung cytology are a diagnostic challenge even for highly experienced morphologists. Internet-based tests are able to reveal limitations of cytomorphology.

Hormone receptor status in breast cancer--a comparison between surgical specimens and fine needle aspiration biopsies

The present study was performed to evaluate the immunocytochemical analysis (ICA) of oestrogen (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR) in fine needle aspiration (FNA) biopsies from primary breast cancers as compared with the established enzyme immunoassays (ER-EIA and PR-EIA) based on cytosol homogenates from the corresponding resected tumour specimens. A total of 967 primary breast cancers were assessed for ER and PR content by both methods. Correlations between EIA and ICA expressed as percentage of tumour cells with a positive staining were highly significant (P < 0.001) for ER and PR. Staining intensity yielded only limited additional information. The concordance between the two techniques was about 80%. Evaluation of biological parameters by FNA may be useful to decide the optimal treatment for breast cancer patients.

Contribution of 99mTc-anti-carcinoembryonic antigen antibody and 99mTc-sestamibi scintimammography in the evaluation of high risk palpable breast lesions

Mammography is the screening test of choice for breast cancer. Its low specificity leads to a large number of unnecessary biopsies. Scintimammography, with either Tc-sestamibi (MIBI) or Tc-anti-carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) Fab', has been proposed as a non-invasive test to lower the high false positive rate of mammography in certain patients. The two agents have not been compared, nor has their combined application been evaluated. We performed a prospective, non-randomized, open-label, single-centre study of 32 women with clinically and mammographically suspected breast cancer [Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS, American College of Radiology) 4 or 5]. All patients underwent Tc-MIBI and Tc-anti-CEA Fab' scintimammography, and the results were correlated with histopathology. Overall, the accuracies for MIBI and CEA scans were 90.3% (28/31) and 77.4% (24/31), respectively. The probability of disease after mammography was 0.939+/-0.081 (95% confidence interval, CI). The post-mammography probabilities after positive MIBI or CEA scan were 0.965 and 0.960, respectively, and after negative MIBI or CEA scan 0.750 and 0.875, respectively. None of the above differences is significant. The post-test probability when both scans were positive (irrespective of which was performed first) was 0.977. It can be concluded that there are indications that scintimammography with Tc-MIBI is superior to that with Tc-anti-CEA Fab' when these tests are used as screening tests for breast cancer. However, mammography remains the screening test of choice for highly suspicious clinically palpable breast lesions. In this group of patients, the application of scintimammography with either Tc-MIBI or Tc-anti-CEA Fab' (alone or in combination) offers no additional advantage.