细胞块免疫组化染色技术在浆膜腔积液细胞诊断中的应用

目的探讨以预糊化淀粉为支架的新细胞块免疫组化染色技术在浆膜腔积液细胞诊断中的应用价值。方法收集该院2015-01~2016-09接收的浆膜腔积液标本226例,分别做传统细胞涂片和以预糊化淀粉为支架制作细胞块,根据诊断需要选做免疫组化染色。结果传统细胞涂片阳性检出率为25/226(11.06%),细胞块结合免疫组化阳性检出率为48/226(21.24%),明显优于传统细胞涂片(P0.05)。结论以预糊化淀粉为支架的新细胞块技术操作简单,切片质量优良,结合免疫组化染色明显提高了浆膜腔积液恶性肿瘤细胞的检出率,并有助于确定转移性肿瘤的组织来源。     

p16、RAR-β和APC基因甲基化联合检测对恶性浆膜腔积液的诊断价值

目的:探讨浆膜腔积液沉渣细胞的肿瘤抑制蛋白(p16)、视黄酸受体β(RAR-β)和结肠腺瘤性息肉病(APC)基因甲基化状态检测在良、恶性浆膜腔积液中的鉴别诊断价值。方法:选取太和医院的患者浆膜腔积液患者65例,其中良性浆膜腔积液27例,恶性浆膜腔积液38例。运用甲基化特异性PCR技术对p16、RAR-β和APC基因启动子区域进行甲基化检测。结果:p16基因和RAR-β基因的甲基化频率2组比较差异无统计学意义;APC基因甲基化频率良性组为7.4%,恶性组为28.9%,2组比较差异有统计学意义(P0.05);p16、RAR-β和APC基因甲基化检测的阳性率恶性组为84.2%,84.2%,76.3%,良性组为33.3%,44.4%,14.8%,2组比较差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论:浆膜腔积液p16、RAR-β和APC基因甲基化检查对恶性肿瘤的早期诊断具有非常重要的诊断价值。     

浆膜腔积液脱落细胞端粒酶逆转录酶mRNA检测及其意义

恶性浆膜腔积液已成为恶性肿瘤转移的一个突出表现，本研究采用核酸原位杂交技术对浆膜腔积液脱落细胞端粒酶逆转录酶(hTERT)mRNA进行分析，旨在明确积液中各种脱落细胞hTERT mRNA的表达状况，探讨其在恶性浆膜腔积液中的诊断价值。     

细胞DNA定量分析法在浆膜腔积液鉴别诊断中的应用

目的探讨细胞DNA定量分析法在良恶性浆膜腔积液鉴别诊断中的应用价值。方法将297例份浆膜腔积液（胸水、腹水、心包积液）分别制成4张薄层细胞涂片,2张做巴氏染色、行常规细胞学检查,2张经Feulgen染色、行细胞DNA定量分析。结果297例份标本,常规细胞学检查发现138例（44.5%）异常,DNA定量分析发现131例（44.1%）异常;常规细胞学检查诊断为癌及可疑癌细胞的84例中均出现DNA异倍体,常规细胞学检查发现异型细胞的54中47例（87%）出现DNA异倍体。结论细胞DNA定量分析可进一步认证常规细胞学检查结果并弥补其不足,二者联合应用可鉴别浆膜腔积液的性质。     

细胞块技术应用质量控制方法对恶性浆膜腔积液诊断效能探讨

目的探讨细胞块病理技术在恶性浆膜腔积液细胞学诊断应用中的价值、存在的问题及质控方法,以进一步提高细胞块病理诊断的准确性。方法选择2016-02～2018-02该院276例恶性浆膜腔积液,均进行传统细胞学涂片(conventional smear,CS)和质控前常规细胞块技术(routine cell block,RCB)操作流程,对RCB切片诊断中可疑或阴性病例按预设5项主要质量控制指标再行质控后细胞块制备技术(quality control in cell block technology,QCCB)切片检查,将三者诊断结果进行对比分析,比较三者结果的准确性,分析各自存在的问题。结果 276例恶性浆膜腔积液中用CS确诊恶性肿瘤218例(78.99%),其中确诊恶性且肿瘤分类明确199例(72.10%)。RCB确诊恶性肿瘤233例(84.42%),其中确诊恶性且肿瘤分类明确225例(81.52%)。QCCB确诊恶性肿瘤272例(98.55%),其中确诊恶性且肿瘤分类明确270例(97.83%),无误诊或漏诊病例。RCB相对于CS能提高恶性肿瘤诊断率5.43%,提高分型诊断准确率9.42%,但两者差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。QCCB相对于CS和RCB,在提高确诊恶性肿瘤和分型诊断准确率方面差异均有统计学意义(P 0.05)。结论细胞块技术在恶性浆膜腔积液细胞学病理诊断中显著优于传统细胞学,加强细胞块病理技术各环节质量控制有利于减少不确定诊断,并有助于避免误诊和漏诊。     

细胞核仁组成区嗜银蛋白检测对良恶性胸腔积液的鉴别诊断 …

目的 探讨核仁组成嗜银蛋白检测在良性胸腔积液间皮细胞和恶性胸腔积液癌细胞临别诊断中的价值。方法 对５０例恶怀、３０例良性胸腔积液鹗２的胸腔积液细胞涂片行ＡｇＮＯｒ染色，观察良性胸腔积液间皮细胞和恶性胸积液癌细胞核内的ＡｇＮＯＲ数目和形态。另观察６例临床疑诊恶性胸腔积液而常规脱落细胞检查阴性者胸积液细胞核内的ＡｇＮＯＲ数目和形态。结果 恶性组癌细胞平均每核ＡｇＮＯＲ数显著高于良性组间皮细胞；恶性组癌     

胸腔积液细胞块切片免疫组化染色技术鉴别诊断肺腺癌的临床研究

目的探讨胸腔积液细胞块切片免疫组化染色技术对肺腺癌的鉴别诊断价值。方法选取76例胸腔积液患者作为研究对象,采集胸腔积液标本,分别行细胞块切片免疫组化染色检查和常规细胞涂片检查,检测指标包括MOC-31、CK7、TTF-1、CD15等,比较两种方法鉴别诊断肺腺癌的敏感性。结果细胞块切片HE染色与常规涂片HE染色对胸腔积液的诊断结果比较无明显差异(χ~2,P0.05)。细胞块切片免疫组化染色对恶性胸腔积液的诊断率明显高于常规涂片免疫组化染色(χ~2,P0.05)。肺腺癌细胞的TTF-1、CEA、Ber EP4、CD15、MOC-31、CK7阳性表达率较高,良性细胞的Desmin、WT-1、Calretinin、CK5/6阳性表达率较高。肺腺癌与间皮性肿瘤间的Desmin、WT-1Calretinin、CK5/6、TTF-1、CEA、Ber EP4、CD15、MOC-31、CK7阳性表达率比较有显著性差异(P0.05)。结论细胞块切片是临床诊断恶性胸腔积液的有效手段,联合免疫组化染色技术能够为临床鉴别诊断肺腺癌提供可靠依据。     

细胞蜡块结合免疫组化在小细胞癌诊断中应用价值

目的探讨应用细胞蜡块结合免疫化学染色在恶性小细胞癌中诊断价值。方法利用常规细胞涂片或薄层液基细胞学(thinprep cytology test,TCT)方法筛查疑似小细胞癌病例21例(细针穿刺标本8例、胸腔积液13例),全部病例制作细胞蜡块,采用免疫组织化学染色,比较分析两种方法的诊断价值。结果诊断小细胞癌的阳性率在细胞蜡块-免疫组化方法明显高于常规细胞涂片或TCT方法(76.2%和28.6%),两种方法比较有显著性差异(χ~2=9.545,P0.05)。余5例中1例为腺癌、2例为鳞癌、1例为间皮瘤、1例为多发性骨髓瘤。结论细胞蜡块结合免疫组化技术可提高小细胞癌阳性率,对鉴别诊断和组织学分型具有重要意义。     

端粒酶在良恶性胸水中的表达及临床意义

目的 探讨端粒酶在良恶性胸腔积液中的表达及其与良恶性胸腔积液临床表现的关系.方法 利用荧光原位杂交方法对23例恶性胸腔积液和25例良性胸腔积液的端粒酶活性进行检测,并结合临床资料分析.结果 23例恶性胸水中,端粒酶表达阳性19例(82.6%),而25例良性胸水中,端粒酶表达阳性2例(8.0%),二者比较有统计学差异(P＜0.05);早期恶性胸腔积液和晚期恶性胸腔积液的端粒酶表达阳性率分别为81.8%和83.3%,二者比较无统计学差异(P＞0.05).结论 端粒酶阳性表达与恶性胸腔积液的发生有关,是一个重要的肿瘤标记物,在恶性胸水脱落细胞中检测到端粒酶表达可作为早期病变的辅助指标.     

联合检测血清、浆膜腔液多项肿瘤标志物的诊断价值

目的探讨联合检测血清、浆膜腔积液多项肿瘤标志物对浆膜腔积液性质的诊断价值。方法应用放免法分别检测血清、浆膜腔积液中ＡＦＰ、ＣＥＡ、ＣＡ１２５、ＣＡ５０、ＣＡ１９－９及计算浆膜腔积液／血清（ｄ／ｓ）值。共检测７１例,分为恶性积液、恶性肿瘤伴良性积液、结核性积液、非结核性良性疾病伴积液四组。结果ＣＡ１２５在结核组与恶性积液组血清、积液中均有较高的阳性率。积液中ＡＦＰ、ＣＥＡ、ＣＡ５０、ＣＡ１９－９至少一项以上阳性并ｄ／ｓ值＞１．５,恶性积液诊断率达９８５％。积液中ＡＦＰ、ＣＥＡ、ＣＡ５０、ＣＡ１９－９中至少一项以上阳性并ｄ／ｓ值＜０．６７,恶性肿瘤伴良性积液诊断率９８３％。积液中ＣＡ１２５阳性并ｄ／ｓ值＞１．５而ＡＦＰ、ＣＥＡ、ＣＡ５０、ＣＡ１９－９均阴性诊断结核性浆膜腔积液诊断率１００％。结论联合检测血清、浆膜腔积液中的ＡＦＰ、ＣＥＡ、ＣＡ５０、ＣＡ１９－９、ＣＡ１２５及计算其ｄ／ｓ值,对恶性积液、恶性肿瘤伴良性积液及结核性积液的鉴别诊断有重要临床价值。     

E-cadherin and calretinin as immunocytochemical markers to differentiate malignant from benign serous effusions

AIM: To investigate the expressions of E-cadherin and calretinin in exfoliated cells of serous effusions and evaluate their values in distinguishing malignant effusions from benign ones. METHODS: Fresh serous effusion specimens were centrifuged and exfoliated cells were collected. Cells were then processed with a standardized procedure, including paraformaldehyde fixation, BSA-PBS solution washing and smears preparation. E-cadherin and calretinin were detected by immunocytochemistry (ICC). RESULTS: In the exfoliated cells of serous effusions, most of carcinoma cells only expressed E-cadherin, and most of mesothelial cells only expressed calretinin, and benign cells (lymphocytes and granulocytes) did not express either of them. For E-cadherin, 85.7% (30/35) of malignant effusions and 8.1% (3/37) of benign fluids were ICC-positive (P<0.001). The sensitivity of E-cadherin ICC in the diagnosis of malignant effusions was 85.7%, specificity 91.9%, and diagnostic rate 88.9%. For calretinin, 94.6% (35/37) of benign effusions and 11.4% (4/35) of malignant effusions were ICC-positive (P<0.001). The sensitivity of calretinin ICC in the diagnosis of benign effusions was 94.6%, specificity 88.6%, and diagnostic rate 91.7%. For diagnosis of benign and malignant effusions by combining E-cadherin ICC and calretinin ICC, the specificities were up to 100% and 97.1%, respectively. CONCLUSION: E-cadherin ICC and calretinin ICC are sensitive and specific in differential diagnosis of benign and malignant serous effusion specimens and specificities are evidently improved when both markers are combined.     

Use of two epithelium-specific monoclonal antibodies for diagnosis of malignancy in serous effusions

Two monoclonal antibodies, HMFG2 and AUA1, raised against epithelial-cell determinants were used to detect carcinoma cells in smears of serous effusions. Both antibodies react strongly with malignant epithelial cells but not with normal mesothelial or endothelial cells. A third antibody, 11-4.1, which does not react with any human tissue, was used as a negative control. An immunoperoxidase-staining technique was applied to smears of cells from serous effusions. The immunohistochemical diagnosis was in agreement with the cytological diagnosis. In cases with equivocal cytology in which the diagnosis became clear in later samples, the immunohistochemical diagnosis gave the correct result. With this combination of tumour-associated monoclonal antibodies a confident diagnosis of malignancy in serous effusions can be made.     

脱落细胞学、DNA异倍体和肿瘤标志物检查联合诊断恶性胸腹水的价值探讨

目的：评价脱落细胞学、DNA异倍体、肿瘤标志物检查联合诊断恶性胸腹水的应用价值。方法：贝克曼公司RS-6500流式细胞分析仪,观察DNA异倍体,以DNA异倍体≥10%作为阳性标准;涂片染色,镜下观察细胞形态特征;肿瘤标志物检查使用Combas 6000电化学发光仪测定。结果：39例恶性肿瘤,DNA异倍体分析有21例阳性,阳性率53.9%,70例良性肿瘤仅1例阳性,阳性率1.4%;细胞学检查,39例恶性胸腹水以找到癌细胞为阳性,阳性16例,阳性率41.0%,70例良性胸腹水中,未找到癌细胞;肿瘤标志物（SF、CEA、NSE、CA-125）检查,恶性阳性率为74.4%,61.5%,64.4%,72.0%,良性阳性率为15.8%,21.4%,12.5%,5.6%,差异有统计学意义（P〈0.01）,4项联合检测,以任意一项阳性指标作为阳性判断,可将敏感度提高到92.3%。细胞学、DNA异倍体与肿瘤标志物联合检测,其联合灵敏度为87.0%,联合特异度为77.7%,灵敏度明显提高。结论：脱落细胞学、DNA异倍体、肿瘤标志物联合检测,可大大提高恶性胸腹水的诊断阳性率。     

Malignant pleural effusions. A clinical cytopathologic study

From 1978 to 1982, 620 pleural fluid cytology specimens were examined, of which 80 were positive in 64 patients. Of these 64, three (0.5%) specimens had false-positive results. Adenocarcinoma of the lung was the most frequent (25 of 61) primary site, followed by breast (12 of 61), ovary (six of 61), and pancreas (five of 61). Comparing cytology with pleural core needle biopsy specimens in 26 patients, the cytology results were positive in 96%, while the needle biopsy specimens alone were positive in only 69%. Following the diagnoses of malignant pleural effusions, the patients receiving combined chemotherapy and radiotherapy had a mean survival of 328 days, compared with only 79 days for those who received no therapy. In conclusion, cytologic examination of Papanicolaou-stained smears yielded a greater percentage of positive diagnoses than either cell block preparations or pleural needle biopsy specimens. Over the past 25 years, the mean survival after the diagnosis of malignant pleural effusions has shown no improvement.     

CEA、CYFRA21-1、TSGF对恶性胸水诊断价值的研究

目的通过对胸水中CEA（癌胚抗原）、CYFRA21-1（细胞角蛋白19片段）、TSGF（恶性肿瘤特异性生长因子）的检测,探讨此三项指标在恶性胸水诊断中的价值。方法应用酶联免疫法（ELISA）对59例恶性胸水和48例良性胸水进行检测。结果恶性胸水组中CEA、CYFRA21-1、TSGF在胸水中的含量明显高于良性胸水组（P〈0．01）。CYFRA21-1在肺鳞癌中表达水平最高,CEA在肺腺癌中表达水平最高。其敏感性和特异性分别为：CEA：81．36％,91．67％;CYFRA21-1：91．53％,79．17％;TSGF：86．44％,89．58％。胸水CEA＋CYFRA21-1＋TSGF联合检测肺癌的的敏感性为93．22％,特异性为60．42％,阳性预测值为84．69％,阴性预测值为86．58％。结论CEA、CYFRA21-1、TSGF的联合检测在恶性胸水的诊断中有重要的I临床应用价值。     

胸腔积液端粒酶和癌胚抗原测定对良恶性胸腔积液诊断价值对比研究

目的 研究胸腔积液端粒酶活性在良恶性胸腔积液中的鉴别诊断价值,并与癌胚抗原（CEA）进行比较。方法 用聚合酶链反应－酶联免疫吸附分析法（PCR－ELISA）检测胸腔积液端粒酶活性,用酶免疫分析法（EIA）检测胸腔积液CEA水平。根据最终诊断结果,65例患者分成2组：（1）非恶性胸腔积液组：35例,（2）恶性胸腔积液组：30例。并将端粒酶活性检测结果与胸腔积液CEA测定结果进行比较。结果 非恶性胸腔积液中端粒酶阳性2例（5．7％）,恶性胸腔积液中阳性27例（90％）,端粒酶活性测定诊断恶性胸腔积液的灵敏度为0．90,特异度0．94,阳性预测值0．93,阴性预测值0．92,正确率0．92。CEA诊断灵敏度为0．60,特异度0．89,阳性预测值0．82。阴性预测值0．72,正确 率0．75。结论 胸腔积液端粒酶活性鉴别良恶性胸腔积液的诊断效能明显优于CEA测定,可作为一种诊断恶性胸腔积液的辅助手段。     

Chromosome analysis and cell cytology in effusions. A comparative study.

Chromosome analysis and conventional cytology have been done on serous effusions from 35 patients, 21 of whom had a final clinical diagnosis of malignant disease and 14 of non-malignant disease. Sixteen of the malignant cases were previously untreated. Cytology disclosed nine cases as malignant, three as suspect malignant and nine as normal. The comparable figures for chromosome analysis were 14 malignant, two suspect malignant, and five normal. Neither of the methods gave false positive results in the small series of non-malignant disease. In the present study chromosome analysis has thus provided greater diagnostic accuracy than cytology on serous effusions of malignant disorders.     

Diagnostic value of the determination of carcinoembryonic antigens with monoclonal antibodies in abdominal and pleural effusion

Differentiation between malignant and benign effusions from abdominal and pleural cavities is still a difficult problem. In this study, monoclonal antibody was used to determine carcinomatous embryonic antigens in abdominal and pleural effusions of 137 cases. Fourty-eight cases were proved to be malignant and 89 cases benign. The values of carcinomatous embryonic antigens of malignant and benign effusions were (means +/- s) 35.99 +/- 44.16 and 2.13 +/- 2.33 ng/ml respectively. The difference between malignant and benign groups was obvious (P less than 0.001). If carcinomatous embryonic antigens greater than 5 ng/ml is used as a positive standard in the diagnosis of malignant effusion, the sensitivity of this method is 87.5% and the specificity is 93.26%.