Comparison Between Pathological Diagnosis and Cytogenetic Diagnosis by Short Tandem Repeat Polymorphism Analysis of Suspected Molar Pregnancies.
Comparison Between Pathological Diagnosis and Cytogenetic Diagnosis by Short Tandem Repeat Polymorphism Analysis of Suspected Molar Pregnancies.
复制标题
疑似葡萄胎妊娠的短串联重复多态性分析的病理诊断与细胞遗传学诊断的比较。
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2016
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
M. Shozu
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
H. Usui;T. Kiyokawa;J. Qu;K. Nishikimi;S. Tate;A. Mitsuhashi;Y. Nakatani;M. Shozu
目的
目的：探讨磨牙妊娠肉眼和组织病理学诊断的准确性，并与细胞遗传学诊断作为金标准进行比较。
研究设计
2007年至2011年期间，在千叶大学医院招募患者进行疑似磨牙妊娠的分子诊断研究。妇科医生在撤离后立即进行了宏观诊断。然后由病理学家在常规基础上进行病理诊断，而不进行p57Kip2免疫染色。通过短串联重复序列（STR）多态性分析进行分子细胞遗传学诊断。根据STR多态性分析，将雄激素遗传、双亲三倍体和双亲二倍体绒毛组织分别归类为完全性葡萄胎（CHM）、部分性葡萄胎（PHM）和流产。
结果
共入组86例患者。细胞遗传学诊断的CHM、PHM和流产的数量分别为64、9和13。肉眼和细胞遗传学诊断的一致率为85%（CHM：56，PHM：4，流产：13）。组织病理学和细胞遗传学诊断的一致率为87%（CHM：59，PHM：5，流产：10）。3个类别的完全一致率为78%（CHM：55，PHM：3，流产：10）。
结论
肉眼和组织病理学诊断都不是完美的，但在单个滋养层中心两者都相当准确。
OBJECTIVE
To elucidate the diagnostic accuracy of macroscopic and histopathological diagnoses of molar pregnancy as compared with cytogenetic diagnosis as the gold standard.
STUDY DESIGN
Patients were recruited for the molecular diagnostic study of suspected molar pregnancy at Chiba University Hospital between 2007 and 2011. Gynecologists performed macroscopic diagnoses immediately after the evacuation. Pathological diagnoses were then made by pathologists in routine bases without performing p57Kip2 immunostaining. Molecular cytogenetic diagnosis was performed via short tandem repeat (STR) polymorphism analysis. Androgenetic, biparental triploid, and biparental diploid villous tissues determined on STR polymorphism analysis were classified as complete hydatidiform mole (CHM), partial hydatidiform mole (PHM), and abortion, respectively.
RESULTS
A total of 86 patients were enrolled. The number of CHMs, PHMs, and abortions on cytogenetic diagnoses were 64, 9, and 13, respectively. The concordance rate between macroscopic and cytogenetic diagnoses was 85% (CHM: 56, PHM: 4, and abortions: 13). The concordance rate between histopathological and cytogenetic diagnoses was 87% (CHM: 59, PHM: 5, and abortions: 10). The complete agreement rate among the 3 categories was 78% (CHM: 55, PHM: 3, and abortions: 10).
CONCLUSION
Neither macroscopic nor histopathological diagnoses were perfect, but both were quite accurate in a single trophoblastic center.