4.2 Article

BRAF Test and Cytological Diagnosis with a Single Fine Needle Cytology Sample

Journal

ACTA CYTOLOGICA
Volume 57, Issue 4, Pages 337-340

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000350618

Keywords

Thyroid fine needle cytology; V600E BRAF; Fine needle cytology; Papillary carcinoma; Indeterminate cytology

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: Recently, fine needle cytology (FNC) of the thyroid has been combined with biomolecular analysis. In particular, there has been detailed study of the V600E-BRAF mutation. The aim of our study is to demonstrate that with a single thyroid sample it is possible to obtain enough cellular material for both cytological diagnosis and a V600E-BRAF molecular test. Study Design: FNC was carried out under ultrasound guidance aided by an echographist and cytopathologist. We acquired one biopsy for each nodule with a 23-gauge needle without suction. The preparations were smeared by the pathologist onto one glass slide, air dried and stained with Diff-Quick. Cell adequacy was evaluated for each patient. The needle was washed by aspirating 2 ml of physiologic solution which was collected into a tube. The material was collected for molecular testing. Results:The following cytological diagnoses were made: not neoplastic, Tir2 (n = 227); indeterminate, Tir3 (n = 15); suspicious, Tir4 (n = 4), and malignancy, Tir5 (n = 12). The V600E-BRAF mutation was found in 0 of 227 Tir2 specimens, 2 of 15 (13.3%) Tir3 specimens, 2 of 4(50%) Tir4 specimens and 9 of 12 (75%) Tir5 specimens. Conclusions: Our data showed that, in a routine clinical setting, FNC specimens can be handled properly to provide both morphological and molecular information. In fact, our tests show that with a single specimen it is possible to set up a slide for the cytological diagnosis and to obtain enough residual cellular material for DNA extraction (>70 ng) and for the identification of the V600E-BRAF mutation. Copyright (C) 2013 S. Karger AG, Basel

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available