Gynecologic Pathology
Saumya Shivakumar; Kausalya Kumari Sahu; Ranjitha Rao; Chaithra GV; Cheryl Sarah Philipose; Sharada Rai
Abstract
Background & Objective: Endometrial Carcinoma (EC) is the most common gynecological cancer with a global incidence of 23.2 per 1 lakh population. Histological subclassification of EC is extremely crucial for the diagnosis, proper management strategies, and prognosis. This study was conducted in a ...
Read More
Background & Objective: Endometrial Carcinoma (EC) is the most common gynecological cancer with a global incidence of 23.2 per 1 lakh population. Histological subclassification of EC is extremely crucial for the diagnosis, proper management strategies, and prognosis. This study was conducted in a tertiary care institute to analyze the expression pattern of a minimum panel of 4 markers (ER, p53, CEA, Napsin A) with emphasis on their utility in the routine histological subtyping, aberrant expression, and correlation with various clinicopathological parameters.Methods: A time-bound cross-sectional observational and analytical study was conducted, which includes cases diagnosed in our laboratory from January 2016 to April 2021.Results: Sixty cases diagnosed as EC during the study period formed the sample cases. The ER was expressed in 85% (53/60) of cases in the current study. Among them, 94% (50/53) were endometrioid endometrial carcinomas (EECs). A negative correlation was found between ER intensity and age (r= -1.48). Of 60 EC cases, 10 (16%) cases expressed p53. The tumors positive for p53 with higher intensity were negative for ER and vice versa. The expression pattern of ER and p53 was statistically significant (P=-0.021). On IHC, 84.6% (11/13) of CEA-positive cases expressed both ER and CEA, suggesting mucinous differentiation. Napsin A was expressed in two cases of EEC, FIGO grade I, and one case of serous carcinoma.Conclusion: An inverse association was found between ER and p53 expression. The CEA is valuable in identifying EEC with mucinous differentiation.
Cytology
Zahra Rahemi; Abdolreza Javadi; Behrang Kazeminejad; Abdolali Ebrahimi; Houman Vosough; Afsoon Taghavi; Shahriar Dabiri
Abstract
Background & Objective: Early detection of malignancies in the serous fluids has been remained an issue. A classic diagnostic tool for the ascites and pleural effusions is cytologic study (morphology) with approximately 98% specificity for the detection of cancer cells. This study aimed to evaluate ...
Read More
Background & Objective: Early detection of malignancies in the serous fluids has been remained an issue. A classic diagnostic tool for the ascites and pleural effusions is cytologic study (morphology) with approximately 98% specificity for the detection of cancer cells. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic value of three complementary markers in the serosal fluids of patients with malignant cytology and suspected cases.Methods: Seventy two patients with serosal effusion treated in three teaching hospitals were studied. The cases underwent a diagnostic workup to determine the pleural effusion malignancy and etiologies. Complementary markers, including CEA, CA15-3, and CA125 were measured in serosal fluids of three categories of benign, suspicious, and malignant. The study was carried out by Chemiluminescence immunoalayzer. The morphologies were re-evaluated by a consulting Cytopathologist.Results: Of 72 serosal fluid specimens, 41 (56.9%) were related to pleural effusion and 31 (43.1%) were related to ascites. The sensitivity of CEA, CA125, and CA15-3 biomarkers were 64, 84, and 68%, respectively, and the specificity of each test was 100, 86, and 96%, respectively. This was statistically achieved for the combination of the area of markers below the curve (AUC), 0.93 and 90% sensitivity and 91% specificity. Conclusion: The results suggest that complementary CA125, CA15-3, and CEA markers assayed with well-developed immunoassay method might be useful in the differentiation between malignant and benign effusions while combined with conventional cytology. CA125 yielded a significant correlation between cytomorphology and biomarkers based on the correlation coefficient analysis.