Detection of tumor cells in body cavity fluids by flow cytometric and immunocytochemical analysis.
Detection of tumor cells in body cavity fluids by flow cytometric and immunocytochemical analysis.
复制标题
通过流式细胞术和免疫细胞化学分析检测体腔液中的肿瘤细胞。
DOI：
10.1002/dc.20496
复制
发表时间：
2006
影响因子：
1.3
通讯作者：
Nadji,Mehrdad
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Krishan,Awtar;Ganjei-Azar,Parvin;Jorda,Merce;Hamelik,RonaldM;Reis,IsildinhaM;Nadji,Mehrdad
测量细胞核的电子体积与DNA含量可以用来区分正常和恶性细胞。上皮膜抗原免疫细胞化学(EMA-ICC)是体腔液中一种有用的辅助检测方法，但并不能完全准确地检测出积液中的恶性病变。为了确定多参数流式细胞术(基于光散射、核体积、DNA和核蛋白含量的同时分析)联合(EMA-ICC)检测腹膜和胸腔积液中的恶性细胞的可行性。我们用常规细胞学和多参数激光流式细胞术对130例体腔积液(68例腹膜和62例胸腔积液)进行了研究。EMA-ICC的敏感性(79%比59%，P=0.016)和倍体(79%比38%，P=0.001)明显高于常规细胞学(79%比59%，P=0.001)。细胞学检查的特异性显著高于倍体检查(97%比82%，P=0.012)。EMA-ICC与倍体的特异性(87%比82%，P=0.607)和EMA-ICC与细胞学的特异性(87%比97%，P=0.109)差异无统计学意义。然而，假设连续检测，细胞学和EMA-ICC(79.4%，P=0.016)和细胞学和倍体(73.5%，P=0.004)的联合检测的敏感性显著高于单独细胞学(58.8%)。此外，细胞学和倍性联合检测比单独倍性检测具有更高的敏感性(73%对38%，P<；0.0001)。然而，三项联合检测的敏感性(85.3%)与细胞学与EMA-ICC联合检测(79%)或细胞学与倍体检测(73%)的敏感性无显著差异。多参数流式细胞术结合高分辨率DNA、核体积、蛋白质测量和ICC结合细胞形态学，可能是快速鉴定体腔液中恶性细胞的有价值的工具。诊断。细胞病变。2006；34：528-541。©2006 Wiley-Liss，Inc.
Measurement of electronic volume versus DNA content of nuclei can be used to discriminate between normal and malignant cells. Epithelial membrane antigen immunocytochemistry (EMA‐ICC), a helpful ancillary test in body cavity fluids, is not universally accurate for detecting malignancy in effusions. The current study was undertaken to determine if multiparametric flow cytometry (based on simultaneous analysis of light scatter, nuclear volume, DNA, and nuclear protein content) in combination with (EMA‐ICC) could be used for the detection of malignant cells in peritoneal and pleural fluids.We studied 130 body cavity fluids (68 peritoneal and 62 pleural fluids) by conventional cytology and multiparametric laser flow cytometry. EMA‐ICC was performed using EMA antibodies and L‐SAB detection system (DakoCytomation, Carpinteria, CA).EMA‐ICC had significantly higher sensitivity than conventional cytology (79% versus 59%, P = 0.016) and ploidy (79% versus 38%, P = 0.001). Cytology had significantly higher specificity than ploidy (97% versus 82%, P = 0.012). The differences in specificity between EMA‐ICC and ploidy (87% versus 82%, P= 0.607) or EMA‐ICC and cytology (87% versus 97%, P = 0.109) were not statistically significant. However, assuming serial testing, sensitivity increased significantly for the combinations of cytology and EMA‐ICC (79.4%, P = 0.016) and cytology and ploidy (73.5%, P = 0.004) as compared to cytology alone (58.8%). Also, the combination of cytology and ploidy had a higher sensitivity than ploidy alone (73% versus 38%, P < 0.0001). However, the sensitivity associated with the three tests used in serial (85.3%) was not significantly different from the sensitivities corresponding to the combination of cytology and EMA‐ICC (79%) or cytology and ploidy (73%).Multiparametric flow cytometry utilizing high resolution DNA, nuclear volume, protein measurement, andICC, in combination with cytomorphology, may be a valuable tool for rapid identification of malignant cells in body cavity fluids. Diagn. Cytopathol. 2006;34:528–541. © 2006 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.