Journal of Pathology and Translational Medicine

Original Article

The Usefulness of Immunocytochemistry of CD56 in Determining Malignancy from Indeterminate Thyroid Fine-Needle Aspiration Cytology: Hyunseo Cha, Ju Yeon Pyo, Soon Won Hong; J Pathol Transl Med. 2018;52(6):404-410. Published online October 15, 2018; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4132/jptm.2018.09.20

8,164 View
168 Download
5 Web of Science
4 Crossref

Background
Fine-needle aspiration cytology serves as a safe, economical tool in evaluating thyroid nodules. However, about 30% of the samples are categorized as indeterminate. Hence, many immunocytochemistry markers have been studied, but there has not been a single outstanding marker. We studied the efficacy of CD56 with human bone marrow endothelial cell marker-1 (HBME-1) in diagnosis in the Bethesda System for Reporting Thyroid Cytopathology (TBSRTC) category III.
Methods
We reviewed ThinPrep liquid-based cytology (LBC) samples with Papanicolaou stain from July 1 to December 31, 2016 (2,195 cases) and selected TBSRTC category III cases (n = 363). Twenty-six cases were histologically confirmed as benign (six cases, 23%) or malignant (20 cases, 77%); we stained 26 LBC slides with HBME-1 and CD56 through the cell transfer method. For evaluation of reactivity of immunocytochemistry, we chose atypical follicular cell clusters.
Results
CD56 was not reactive in 18 of 20 cases (90%) of malignant nodules and showed cytoplasmic positivity in five of six cases (83%) of benign nodules. CD56 showed high sensitivity (90.0%) and relatively low specificity (83.3%) in detecting malignancy (p = .004). HBME-1 was reactive in 17 of 20 cases (85%) of malignant nodules and was not reactive in five of six cases (83%) of benign nodules. HBME-1 showed slightly lower sensitivity (85.0%) than CD56. The specificity in detecting malignancy by HBME-1 was similar to that of CD56 (83.3%, p = .008). CD56 and HBME-1 tests combined showed lower sensitivity (75.0% vs 90%) and higher specificity (93.8% vs 83.3%) in detecting malignancy compared to using CD56 alone.
Conclusions
Using CD56 alone showed relatively low specificity despite high sensitivity for detecting malignancy. Combining CD56 with HBME-1 could increase the specificity. Thus, we suggest that CD56 could be a useful preoperative marker for differential diagnosis of TBSRTC category III samples.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Preoperative evaluation of thyroid nodules – Diagnosis and management strategies
Tapoi Dana Antonia, Lambrescu Ioana Maria, Gheorghisan-Galateanu Ancuta-Augustina
Pathology - Research and Practice.2023; 246: 154516. CrossRef
Immunocytochemistry in thyroid cytology and its multiple roles: a systematic review
Federica Policardo, Pietro Tralongo, Angela Feraco, Federica Vegni, Angela Carlino, Alfredo Pontecorvi, Celestino Pio Lombardi, Marco Raffaelli, Francesco Pierconti, Luigi Maria Larocca, Esther Diana Rossi
Diagnostic Histopathology.2023; 29(8): 386. CrossRef
Paving the path toward multi-omics approaches in the diagnostic challenges faced in thyroid pathology
Isabella Piga, Vincenzo L’Imperio, Giulia Capitoli, Vanna Denti, Andrew Smith, Fulvio Magni, Fabio Pagni
Expert Review of Proteomics.2023; 20(12): 419. CrossRef
CD56 Expression in Papillary Thyroid Carcinoma Is Highly Dependent on the Histologic Subtype: A Potential Diagnostic Pitfall
Uiju Cho, Yourha Kim, Sora Jeon, Chan Kwon Jung
Applied Immunohistochemistry & Molecular Morphology.2022; 30(5): 389. CrossRef

First
Prev
Page of 1
Next
Last

Search