Expression of breast cancer type 1 and its relation with expression of estrogen receptors, progesterone receptors, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2/neu in breast carcinoma on trucut biopsy specimens

Objective: (1) The objective is to study the immunohistochemical expression of Breast cancer type 1 (BRCA1) in breast carcinoma on trucut biopsy specimens and (2) To relate its expression with that of estrogen receptors (ER), progesterone receptors (PR), and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER-2)/neu and the clinicopathological parameters. Settings and Design: A cross-sectional hospital-based study was performed in Lady Hardinge Medical College and Shrimati Sucheta Kriplani Hospital, New Delhi, with collaboration of the Departments of Pathology and Surgery from the period of November 2008 to March 2010. Materials and Methods: The study group included 54 cytologically proven cases of breast carcinoma. The immunohistochemical expression of BRCA1 was studied and related with expression of ER, PR, and HER-2/neu on their trucut biopsies. Results: The altered expression of BRCA1 (i.e., reduced or absent expression) was seen in 44.4% cases of breast carcinoma while 55.6% had positive expression. About 83% of breast carcinomas with altered BRCA1 expression were larger than 3 cm in size. The breast carcinomas showing altered expression were found to be mostly high grade (63.6%). This was statistically significant. The ER and PR negativity were seen in 62.5% and 79.2% breast carcinomas with altered BRCA1 expression, respectively. The score 3 positivity of HER-2/neu was more common among carcinomas with altered BRCA1 expression (21% vs. 16.7%). The triple negativity was found in 41.7% breast carcinomas having altered BRCA1 expression. This was statistically significant. Conclusion: The combination of immunohistochemical expression of BRCA1, ER, PR, and HER-2/neu and clinicopathological details may be helpful in predicting the individuals more likely to carry BRCA1 mutations and thus selecting the candidate and family members for genetic screening for BRCA1 mutations.

Rescue Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS)-Guided Trucut Biopsy Following Suboptimal EUS-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration for Mediastinal Lesions

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and Trucut biopsy (TCB) are sensitive techniques for diagnosing mediastinal lesions, but it is unclear how either one or both should be used to obtain a pathologic diagnosis. The objective of our study was to evaluate whether EUS-TCB impacts the diagnosis of mediastinal lesions after the initial on-site review of EUS-FNA specimen suggests a suboptimal result. METHODS: We enrolled consecutive patients with mediastinal lesions who underwent EUS-TCB during the same procedure if the initial EUS-FNA demonstrated an inadequate FNA sample or suggested that histopathology was required for diagnosis. Diagnostic accuracies between procedures were compared as the main outcome. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients (14 men; median age, 56 years; range, 19 to 82 years) underwent EUS-FNA and EUS-TCB to evaluate a mediastinal lymphadenopathy or mass (n=17), to determine the cancer stage (n=3) or to exclude tumor recurrence or metastasis (n=7). The overall diagnostic accuracies of EUS-FNA and EUS-TCB were 78% and 67%, respectively (p=0.375). The combined diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA plus EUS-TCB was 82%. In six patients with nondiagnostic EUS-FNA, EUS-TCB provided a final diagnosis in one patient (17%). CONCLUSIONS: In the current series of patients with mediastinal masses or adenopathy, the administration of EUS-TCB following suboptimal results for the on-site cytology review did not increase the diagnostic yield.

Gastric Schwannoma Diagnosed by Endoscopic Ultrasonography-Guided Trucut Biopsy

Schwannomas of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract are rare subepithelial tumors comprising approximately 3.3% to 12.8% of all mesenchymal tumors of the GI tract. On endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) they are seen as hypoechoic tumors arising most commonly from the 4th proper muscle layer. Although EUS helps to distinguish tumor characteristics, tissue sampling is required for differentiation with other more common tumors such as GI stromal tumors. Both EUS-guided fine needle aspiration and EUS-guided trucut biopsy (EUS-TCB) can be used for tissue sampling. However, only EUS-TCB allows core biopsy and a high yield of immunohistochemical staining. We report a case of a gastric schwannoma diagnosed by EUS-TCB.

Procore and Flexible 19 Gauge Needle Can Replace Trucut Biopsy Needle?

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is routinely performed for establishing tissue diagnosis in patients with gastrointestinal tumors. The concept of delivering chemotherapy based on molecular markers and the ability to establish a reliable diagnosis in lieu of an onsite cytopathologist has fuelled the recent trend in procuring core tissue by means of EUS-guided fine needle biopsy. To overcome the technical limitations induced by the rigidity of the Trucut biopsy needle, a new ProCore needle with reverse bevel technology has been developed. Recent data suggests that the newly developed flexible 19 gauge needle can also procure core tissue and has easy maneuverability when navigating the transduodenal route. Irrespective of the needles being used, the best clinical outcomes can be attained only by practicing evidence-based techniques, procuring adequate quantity of sample for ancillary studies, and processing the specimens appropriately.

Diagnostic Use of Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Trucut Biopsy in Various Diseases / 대한소화기내시경학회지

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided trucut biopsy (EUS-TCB) is a relatively new method, which facilitates obtaining a core biopsy through the gut wall. We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-TCB based on the types of lesions. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the database of 37 cases in 35 patients (mean age, 57.2+/-2.3 years; 23 men) with thoracic and abdominal masses who got EUS-TCB between January 2007 and June 2008. Final diagnoses were determined by malignant positive EUS specimens, surgical pathology, or the clinical course. RESULTS: Adequate samples were obtained by EUS-TCB in 78.4% (29/37) of the cases. The overall diagnostic accuracies of the EUS-TCB were 73.0%. The mean size of the masses was 3.7+/-2.6 cm. The diagnostic accuracies of EUS-TCB according to the lesions were as follows: lymph node, 85.7% (18/21); subepithelial lesion, 60.0% (6/10); and solid tumor, 50% (3/6). With respect to accuracy, lymph nodes were significantly superior to non-lymph node lesions (p=0.046). There was a minor bleeding controlled by hemoclipping (2.7%). CONCLUSIONS: EUS-TCB is a useful technique for the diagnosis of lymph nodes, subepithelial tumors, and solid tumors that were not able to be diagnosed by other methods. In addition, EUS-TCB is a safe and minimally invasive method.