Morphological features of breast cancer circulating tumor cells in blood after physical and biological type of isolation.

BACKGROUND: Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) have become an important biomarker in breast cancer. Different isolation tech-niques based on their biological or physical features were established. Currently, the most widely used methods for visualization after their separation are based on immunofluorescent staining, which does not provide the information on the morphology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The aim of this study was to evaluate how two different separation techniques affect cell morphology and to analyse cell morphology with techniques used in routine cytopathological laboratory. A direct side-by-side comparison of physical (Parsortix®) and biological (MACS®) separation technique was performed. RESULTS: In the preclinical setting, both isolation techniques retained the viability and antigenic characteristics of MCF7 breast cancer cells. Some signs of degeneration such as cell swelling, cytoplasmic blebs, villous projections and vacuolization were observed. In metastatic breast cancer patient cohort, morphological features of isolated CTCs were dependent on the separation technique. After physical separation, CTCs with preserved cell morphology were detected. After biological separation the majority of the isolated CTCs were so degenerated that their identity was difficult to confirm. CONCLUSIONS: Taken together, physical separation is a suitable technique for detection of CTCs with preserved cell morphology for the use in a routine cytopathological laboratory.

Evaluation of the training program for p16/ Ki-67 dual immunocytochemical staining interpretation for laboratory staff without experience in cervical cytology and immunocytochemistry.

Background p16/Ki-67 dual immunocytochemical staining (DS) is considered easy to interpret if evaluators are properly trained, however, there is no consensus on what constitutes proper training. In the present study we evaluated a protocol for teaching DS evaluation on students inexperienced in cervical cytology. Methods Initial training on 40 DS conventional smears was provided by a senior cytotechnologist experienced in such evaluation. Afterwards, two students evaluated 118 cases. Additional training consisted mainly of discussing discrepant cases from the first evaluation and was followed by evaluation of new 383 cases. Agreement and accuracy of students' results were compared among the participants and to the results of the reference after both evaluations. We also noted time needed for evaluation of one slide as well as intra-observer variability of the teacher's results. Results At the end of the study, agreement between students and reference was higher compared to those after initial training (overall percent agreement [OPA] 81.4% for each student, kappa 0.512 and 0.527 vs. OPA 78.3% and 87.2%, kappa 0.556 and 0.713, respectively). However, accuracy results differed between the two students. After initial training sensitivity was 4.3% points and 2.9% points higher, respectively compared to the reference, while specificity was 30.6% points and 24.4% points lower, respectively, compared to the reference. At the end of the study, the sensitivity reached by one student was the same as that of the reference, while it was 2.6% points lower for the other student. There was a statistically significant difference in specificity between one student and the reference and also between students (16.7 and 15.1% points). Towards the end of the study, one student needed 5.2 min for evaluating one slide while the other needed 8.2 min. The intra-observer variability of the senior cytotechnologist was in the range of "very good" in both arms of the study. Conclusions In teaching DS evaluation, the students' progress has to be monitored using several criteria like agreement, accuracy and time needed for evaluating one slide. The monitoring process has to continue for a while after students reach satisfactory results in order to assure a continuous good performance. Monitoring of teacher's performance is also advisable.

Clinical relevance of the borderline results of the Hybrid Capture 2 High-Risk HPV DNA assay with cervical samples collected in Specimen Transport Medium.

Background The Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2) High-Risk HPV DNA assay serves as a triage test in the Slovenian national cervical cancer screening programme ZORA. To improve the limited analytical accuracy of HC2 test results near the cut-off value (1.0 relative light units/cut-off (RLU/CO)), we follow an internal protocol of repeating the test on all samples with borderline results within the 0.7-2.0 RLU/CO interval. The aim of the study was (i) to determine the clinical relevance of HC2 test results within three different "grey zones" for samples stored in Specimen Transport Medium (STM) and (ii) to determine whether the current algorithm of retesting "grey zone" STM specimens with the HC2 assay is clinically relevant. Patients and methods The study included 594 women between 20 and 65 years of age. All participating women were referred for colposcopy, and in cases of abnormal results, biopsy was performed. We assessed the distribution of HC2 test results and the corresponding proportion of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) lesions in three different "grey zones" (1.0-2.5, 0.4-4.0 and 0.7-2.0 RLU/CO), retested specimens with results within a 0.4-4.0 RLU/CO interval and calculated the sensitivity and specificity for HC2 at different RLU/CO values. Results The proportion of specimens within 1.0-2.5, 0.4-4.0 and 0.7-2.0 RLU/CO intervals was 3.9%, 10.8% and 4.5%, respectively. The proportion of CIN2+ lesions within these "grey zones" was 2.5%, 5.6% and 1.2%, respectively. Retesting the samples did not detect any additional CIN2+ cases. Within the 1.0-2.5 RLU/CO interval, the sensitivity decreased from 93.8% to 91.4%, while the specificity increased from 63.3% to 67.5%; for the 0.4-4.0 RLU/CO interval, the sensitivity decreased from 95.1% to 89.5%, while the specificity increased from 56.8% to 69.4%; and for the 0.7-2.0 RLU/CO interval, the sensitivity remained nearly constant (94.4 vs. 93.2%), while the specificity increased from 60.6% to 66.4%. Conclusions Our results show that retesting STM samples within the "grey zones" is not necessary. Retesting samples in the negative "grey zone" does not increase sensitivity, and retesting in the positive "grey zone" is not followed by a less intensive management of women, since these women are recalled regardless of the results of the retest. Furthermore, the majority of samples retain the original HC2 results after retest, and the number of CIN2+ lesions among women with "grey zone" HC2 results is low.