4.0 Article

Grading of follicular lymphoma in cytological samples

Journal

CYTOPATHOLOGY
Volume 27, Issue 6, Pages 390-397

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/cyt.12319

Keywords

follicular lymphoma; flow cytometry; fine needle aspiration biopsy; percentage of large lymphoma cells; grading; survival

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: The treatment of follicular lymphoma (FL) depends on its grade. The current World Health Organization (WHO) 2008 Classification of Tumours of Haematopoietic and Lymphoid Tissues recommends the grading of FL on histological samples according to the Mann and Berard method, taking into consideration the number of centroblasts. There is no generally accepted method for the grading of FL in fine needle aspiration biopsy (FNAB) samples. The aim of the present study was to devise a grading system for FL in cytological samples. Methods: Flow cytometry (FC) was performed on 60 FNAB samples of patients with primary FL. We assumed that FL cells larger than reactive T lymphocytes on FC histograms corresponded to centroblasts. The percentage of large cells was calculated and compared with histological grade, proliferative activity and number of centroblasts per high-power field (HPF) on histological slides, and with survival. Results: The histological analysis of lymph nodes revealed 20 patients with high-grade and 40 patients with low-grade FL. The percentage of large cells in FNAB samples correlated significantly with histological grade (P = 0.02), MIB1 status (P < 0.001) and the number of centroblasts per HPF (P < 0.001). An age over 60 years and a percentage of large cells over 50% in FNAB samples were found to have a statistically significant impact on survival by univariate analysis (P = 0.001 and P = 0.006, respectively). Conclusions: The percentage of large lymphoma cells in FNAB samples of FL determined by FC can be used as a reliable method for FL grading, as it is comparable with the histological grading system.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available