Library

Notes: Study of material from a selected group of 70 patients with hydatidiform mole in 21 per cent of whom choriocarcinoma developed showed no relationship between the histological grade of a hydatidiform mole and subsequent malignancy. Every patient who aborts a hydatidiform mole should be given an adequate follow-up.

Notes: The production of a mouse monoclonal IgM antibody, NCRC-11, raised against human breast carcinoma is described. It has been characterized immunohistologically. The antigen recognised has a wide but highly specific distribution in normal tissues, being virtually confined to the surface of certain epithelial cell types. It is found in some forms of epithelial metaplasia and most epithelial malignancies, particularly adenocarcinomas. The heterogeneity of staining in mammary carcinomas is outlined and is of particular interest. The immunohistological staining distribution of NCRC-11 is similar to other antibodies, including anti-epithelial membrane antigen, which were raised against human milk fat globule membrane. A competition experiment with some of these antibodies, using a flow cytofluorimeter, showed competition with one antibody, LICR LON/M8.

Notes: An audit of ‘equivocal’ (C3) and ‘suspicious’ (C4) categories in fine needle aspiration cytology of the breast We have audited the frequency of use and outcome of the ‘equivocal/atypia probably benign’ (C3) and ‘suspicious of malignancy’ (C4) category for breast cytology in our Unit. A total of 14 935 cytological specimens were reported by at least one of the three pathologists with a special interest in breast pathology, according to five categories of the NHSBSP guidelines for cytology reporting, 1992; 3.7% (555 cases) and 3.9% (587 cases) of cases were classified as equivocal (C3) and suspicious (C4), respectively, giving a total rate (C3 + C4) of 7.6%. Of the C3 cases, 68% were subsequently benign and 32% were malignant. Of the C4 cases, 19% were subsequently benign and 81% malignant. The commonest benign lesions in both categories were fibroadenomas (7.6% of C3 and 19.8% of C4), fibrocystic change (14.3% of C3 and 12.5% of C4), radial scars (6.2% of C3 and 10.4% of C4) and papillomas (6.2% of C3 and 6.3% of C4). Of the malignant lesions (particularly those classified as C3), a high proportion were low grade or special type cancers. The categories of atypia probably benign (C3) and suspicious of malignancy (C4) in breast cytology provide a strategy for classification of problematic or uncertain cases; this maintains the predictive value of the benign (C2) and malignant (C5) categories, and allows separation of these difficult cases into clinically useful groups with differing probabilities of malignancy.

Notes: Two methods of obtaining a pre-operative diagnosis of carcinoma of the breast are compared. Tru-Cut needle biopsy was carried out on 368 consecutive patients with palpable breast lumps, and both Tru-Cut biopsy and fine needle aspiration cytology were performed during part of this study on 163 of the patients. A final histological diagnosis was obtained in each patient, at excision biopsy or mastectomy. There were 278 patients with carcinoma and 90 with benign breast disease. A correct positive diagnosis of carcinoma was made by the Tru-Cut method in 73.5% of cases, but in only 52% of cases by aspiration cytology. More importantly, there were no false positive diagnoses of carcinoma with Tru-Cut biopsy, but five cases of benign breast disease were incorrectly diagnosed as carcinoma by aspiration cytology. It is concluded that Tru-Cut biopsy is sufficiently reliable to be able to proceed direct to mastectomy following a positive diagnosis of carcinoma, in distinction to aspiration cytology with which an unacceptably high number of false positives occurs. The benefits of a pre-operative Tru-Cut biopsy diagnosis are identified.

Notes: Routine audit of breast fine needle aspiration (FNA) cytology specimens and aspirator inadequate ratesIn an attempt to improve the quality of the breast FNA specimens we instigated a continuing audit of this procedure in this hospital. All FNAs since 1990 have had the following recorded: mode of aspiration, e.g. freehand or image guided, patient presentation (screening or symptomatic), patient diagnostic category, cytological diagnosis and final histological diagnosis. Aspirator performance was assessed by means of the inadequate aspiration rate (IR) of FNAs performed on patients with a final diagnosis of cancer (FDC) and diagnostic category A patients (clinically or radiologically malignant lesions). An ongoing annual review of the performance of all the aspirators was undertaken, all of whom received individual feedback. Counselling and further training were offered where indicated by poor performance. Over the period 1990–1995 a total of 13 537 FNAs were performed by 27 aspirators. The IR on category A and FDC cases over this period was 16.0% and 18.1%. The best performance achieved by an aspirator in a calendar year was an IR of 3.6% with no inadequate specimens in either FDC or category A lesions, and the best performance over the entire period was an average IR of 11.75% and 14.25% for FDC and category A groups, respectively. The overall IR on category A patients ranged from 15.9% to 23.8% and on FDC cases from 12.2% to 21.7%. There was a significant improvement in individual junior aspirator performance when their first year was compared with their last year on the unit. In some cases a deterioration in intra-aspirator performance was observed, from an IR of 6% to 33%. The overall IR rate of the unit remained stable for FDC patients, 15.5% in 1990 compared with 15.1% in 1995. This appeared to be largely due to a high proportion of the aspirations being performed by experienced personnel with consistent IRs. However, concealed within the overall rate there were some poor performers who benefited from counselling and/or further training. These results indicate an important role for audit in identifying poor aspirators who benefit from targeted training and advice, thereby improving the quality of FNA specimens, and ultimately patient care.

Notes: Considerable progress has been made in understanding breast lesions utilizing molecular methods, but conventional morphology, simple immunohistochemical stains and common sense still prevail in diagnosing the vast majority of breast disease. The focus of this review is to identify the most common breast lesions sent to our consultation practice, and to reiterate salient diagnostic features, differential diagnoses and common pitfalls in identifying these lesions. Separation of epithelial proliferative lesions and differentiation between usual epithelial hyperplasia (UEH) and atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) are the most common problems encountered in our Consultation practice. Differentiation between UEH and ADH is based on the assumption that ADH is a clonal process, recognized by a uniform phenotype and more recently described immunohistochemical markers such as differential cytokeratin and also hormone receptor expression. Difficulty in subtyping invasive carcinomas and exclusion of in situ and/or invasive carcinoma in a sclerosing lesion is also commonly noted. Finally, problems in distinguishing various papillary and fibroepithelial lesions are also encountered. The use of common immunohistochemical stains such as various cytokeratin and myoepithelial markers, E-cadherin and hormone receptors is helpful in solving most of these diagnostic dilemmas.