METHYLATION STATUS OF BCL6 DISTINGUISHES DNA SAMPLES FROM BENIGN AND MALIGNANT LYMPHOPROLIFERATIVE DISORDERS

INTRODUCTION: Core biopsy of the breast has become the method of choice for tissue diagnosis of screen detected microcalcifications and some mass lesions in many breast assessment centres. Biopsy results are not available until the following day. Imprint cytology of fresh breast core samples allows same-day reporting and patient counselling.
AIM: To determine the accuracy of core imprint cytology when compared with core biopsy diagnosis when used in a breast assessment centre setting.
METHODS: Core imprints (CI) were prepared and reported on all fresh core biopsies (CB) performed at the Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital Breast Centre from May to December 2000. Fresh core samples were placed on a glass microscope slide. Core radiographs were taken for microcalcification lesions (MC). A laboratory technician gently and quickly rolled the cores on the slide with fine forceps. The cores were fixed in formalin, processed and reported next day. The imprint slide was air dried and stained with DiffQuik. CI were reported using four categories: Insufficient, Benign, Indeterminate and Malignant. Counselling and planning for management were possible on the same day in women with malignant diagnoses. Clinicians were advised not to discuss negative or indeterminate CI results with women and to defer to the final CB report.
RESULTS: Cores were performed on 381 lesions. There were 83 carcinomas (38 in MC and 45 in masses) and 56 were called malignant on CI (absolute sensitivity 67.5%; 78.9% for MC and 57.8% for masses). 3 malignancies on CB were negative on CI giving a false negative rate of 3.6%. There were no false positive diagnoses. The predictive value of a benign diagnosis was 95.3%. There were no adverse effects in the histology of CB.
CONCLUSION: CI was an accurate method of providing an immediate diagnosis of malignancy in two thirds of malignancies confirmed on CB.     

Prediction of response to antiretroviral therapy by human experts and by the EuResist data‐driven expert system (the EVE study)

Objectives

The EuResist expert system is a novel data‐driven online system for computing the probability of 8‐week success for any given pair of HIV‐1 genotype and combination antiretroviral therapy regimen plus optional patient information. The objective of this study was to compare the EuResist system vs. human experts (EVE) for the ability to predict response to treatment.

Methods

The EuResist system was compared with 10 HIV‐1 drug resistance experts for the ability to predict 8‐week response to 25 treatment cases derived from the EuResist database validation data set. All current and past patient data were made available to simulate clinical practice. The experts were asked to provide a qualitative and quantitative estimate of the probability of treatment success.

Results

There were 15 treatment successes and 10 treatment failures. In the classification task, the number of mislabelled cases was six for EuResist and 6–13 for the human experts [mean±standard deviation (SD) 9.1±1.9]. The accuracy of EuResist was higher than the average for the experts (0.76 vs. 0.64, respectively). The quantitative estimates computed by EuResist were significantly correlated (Pearson r=0.695, P<0.0001) with the mean quantitative estimates provided by the experts. However, the agreement among experts was only moderate (for the classification task, inter‐rater κ=0.355; for the quantitative estimation, mean±SD coefficient of variation=55.9±22.4%).

Conclusions

With this limited data set, the EuResist engine performed comparably to or better than human experts. The system warrants further investigation as a treatment‐decision support tool in clinical practice.     

Extensive nodular cutaneous amyloidosis: an unusual presentation

Amyloidosis is characterized by the deposition of a group of unrelated proteins leading to changes in tissue architecture and function. The nodular variant is the rarest form of the cutaneous amyloidoses. We report a patient with localized nodular amyloidosis without systemic amyloid involvement or paraproteinaemia after 6 years of follow-up. The unusual aspects of our case were a plaque presentation rather than nodular, and the disseminated pattern observed.