4.7 Article

Analysis of ret/PTC gene rearrangements refines the fine needle aspiration diagnosis of thyroid cancer

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM
卷 86, 期 5, 页码 2187-2190

出版社

ENDOCRINE SOC
DOI: 10.1210/jc.86.5.2187

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Papillary carcinoma (PC) represents the most common malignancy of the thyroid gland. Therefore, the assessment of fine needle aspiration biopsies of thyroid nodules rests heavily on the identification of nuclear features of PC. The ret/PTC oncogene, formed by several gene rearrangements, is specific for PC among thyroid tumors. In this study we examined thyroid aspirates for the presence of ret/PTC gene rearrangements by RT-PCR and Southern hybridization. We prospectively collected thyroid aspirates in Cytolyt solution and prepared slides for cytological examination using the ThinPrep method. All remaining material was then used for nucleic acid extraction with subsequent RT-PCR for the housekeeping gene PGK-1 to ensure ribonucleic acid integrity, for thyroglobulin to ensure the presence of follicular epithelial cells, and for the three most common ret/PTC gene rearrangements (ret/PTC-1. -2, and -3). The results of the first 73 cases with surgical follow-up were correlated with the cytological diagnosis and final histopathology. ret/PTC gene rearrangements were detected in 17 of 33 samples (52%) that were PC on histopathology; the presence of gene rearrangements was confirmed by molecular analysis of corresponding surgically resected frozen tissue. There were no false positives. The identification of ret/PTC gene rearrangements refined the diagnosis of PC in 9 of 15 specimens (60%) that would otherwise have been considered indeterminate and in 2 of 6 that were considered insufficient for cytological diagnosis. The results indicate that RT-PCR for ret/PTC is a specific marker that can be applied to fine needle aspiration biopsies and improves the diagnosis of malignancy when used as an adjunct to traditional cytology.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据