Login to MyKarger

New to MyKarger? Click here to sign up.



Login with Facebook

Forgot your password?

Authors, Editors, Reviewers

For Manuscript Submission, Check or Review Login please go to Submission Websites List.

Submission Websites List

Institutional Login
(Shibboleth or Open Athens)

For the academic login, please select your country in the dropdown list. You will be redirected to verify your credentials.

Review

Free Access

Flow Cytometry of Nonhematopoietic Neoplasms

Pillai V.a · Dorfman D.M.b

Author affiliations

aDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa., and bDepartment of Pathology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass., USA

Corresponding Author

Correspondence to: Dr. David M. Dorfman

Department of Pathology, Brigham and Women's Hospital

75 Francis Street

Boston, MA 02115 (USA)

E-Mail ddorfman@partners.org

Related Articles for ""

Acta Cytologica 2016;60:336-343

Abstract

Many epithelial neoplasms can be analyzed by flow cytometry (FC), particularly from serous cavity effusion samples, using EpCAM, a cell adhesion molecule expressed on most normal epithelial cells and expressed at a higher level in most epithelial neoplasms. A simple 3-color flow cytometric panel can provide a high sensitivity and specificity compared to cytomorphology. FC provides more rapid immunophenotyping than conventional immunohistochemical staining, can identify rare malignant cells that could be missed by a cytological exam alone, and can be utilized to evaluate limited samples such as cerebrospinal fluid or fine-needle aspiration samples. Flow cytometric analysis for epithelial antigens can be combined with DNA ploidy analysis or assessment of the nucleus-to-cytoplasm ratio. Panels of flow cytometric markers are useful for the assessment of pediatric nonhematopoietic neoplasms, including neuroblastomas, primitive neuroectodermal tumors, Wilms' tumor, rhabdomyosarcomas, germ cell tumors, and hemangiopericytomas, as well as small-round-blue-cell tumors in adults, including small-cell carcinomas.

© 2016 S. Karger AG, Basel


Introduction

Flow cytometry (FC) is well established as a useful diagnostic modality for the assessment of hematopoietic neoplasms [1]. Increasingly it is also being used to detect low levels of disease in leukemias and lymphomas (minimal residual disease; MRD) [2]. FC is not used routinely in the diagnosis or follow-up of nonhematopoietic neoplasms. However, most nonhematopoietic neoplasms and tissues are amenable to flow cytometric analysis. FC can be especially helpful in serous cavity effusions and limited fine-needle aspirate (FNA) or cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) samples. Here we discuss the utility of FC in the diagnosis of epithelial neoplasms and small-round-blue-cell tumors in various samples. All research was conducted in compliance with institutional guidelines.

Nonhematopoietic Neoplasms in Serous Effusions

Epithelial neoplasms are not commonly thought to be conducive to flow cytometric analysis, given their cohesiveness compared to hematopoietic neoplasms. However, we and others have shown that many common epithelial neoplasms can be easily analyzed by FC [3,4,5,6]. Serous cavity effusion samples, in particular, are very amenable to flow cytometric analysis since the cells are already dispersed in a cell suspension which includes single cells. While many antigens have been tested over the years, EpCAM (Ber-EP4, CD326, and MOC31) has emerged as the best marker to detect epithelial cells by FC [4]. EpCAM is a cell adhesion molecule [7] that is expressed on most normal epithelial cells in gastrointestinal, genitourinary, hepatobiliary, and breast tissue [8]. It is expressed at a higher level in most epithelial neoplasms [9]. EpCAM is not expressed on normal or neoplastic mesothelial or hematopoietic cells. Epithelial cells are not seen in normal serous cavity fluids, which typically contain mesothelial cells, monocytes/histiocytes, and lymphocytes. Hence, detection of epithelial cells is significant in a patient with a history or suspicion of an epithelial neoplasm. Immunohistochemical staining for the presence of EpCAM in combination with cytological examination has a high sensitivity and specificity for the identification of malignant effusions [8]. Flow cytometric detection of EpCAM-positive epithelial cells shows a sensitivity and specificity comparable to those of immunohistochemical staining for the detection of malignant epithelial cells, and it can be used to detect a wide variety of epithelial neoplasms (fig. 1) [3,4,5,6]. In addition, FC is able to analyze a large number of cells compared to immunohistochemical staining, it is able to be performed rapidly, without tissue fixation and processing, and it can include a multiparametric analysis of multiple antigens simultaneously.

Fig. 1

Ber-EP4 expression in various carcinomas present in malignant effusion samples assessed by flow cytometric analysis. a Breast ductal carcinoma. b Ovarian papillary serous adenocarcinoma. c Gastric adenocarcinoma. d Endometrial adenocarcinoma. Reprinted with permission from Pillai et al. [3].

http://www.karger.com/WebMaterial/ShowPic/517241

The gold standard for the diagnosis of malignant effusions is a cytological examination. However, it is known that cytology has a high specificity but a lower sensitivity [10]. Frequently, multiple samples are needed for a definitive diagnosis. We and others have shown that EpCAM-based FC has a greater sensitivity than cytology [3,11,12,13]. In addition, FC can provide rapid confirmatory immunophenotyping even in cases that are positive by morphology, obviating the need for immunohistochemical staining. Also, cytological examinations are sometimes reported as suspicious or atypical based on the presence of rare cells that are not sufficient for a positive diagnosis. For clinical decision making, these findings are considered negative. FC can rapidly analyze a larger volume of fluid in such cases, and it is even possible to analyze the entire volume of fluid. Hence, rare malignant cells can be detected using this method and these cases can now be called positive with a greater degree of confidence. In addition to improving the turnaround time for a positive result, FC can obviate the need for multiple paracentesis procedures.

The flow cytometric gating strategy to analyze epithelial cells in effusion specimens is relatively straightforward (fig. 2). First, CD45-positive events are excluded from the analysis to eliminate hematopoietic elements such as lymphocytes and monocytes that are frequent components of effusions [3]. That leaves mesothelial cells and any epithelial cells in the analysis, which are then distinguished from each other by an epithelial marker. While most studies use purely quantitative criteria, we believe that it is important to use a combination of quantitative and qualitative criteria to make a diagnosis of malignant effusion [3]. Additional epithelial or mesothelial markers can be used to increase the specificity but they are not essential. We have shown that a simple 3-color FC panel can provide a high sensitivity and specificity compared to cytology [3]. However, it is important to note that, while hematopoietic elements occupy well-established regions in the forward versus side scatter plot, epithelial elements are variable in size and cytoplasmic complexity and may be present in any region of the forward versus side scatter plot. Hence, all flow cytometric events should be included in the initial analysis, including the debris region (fig. 2). We have found that many of the EpCAM-positive events are in the debris region, but they are not necrotic or dead cell debris since they do not bind other antibodies nonspecifically [3]. We hypothesized that these events represent fragmented tumor cells. However, it was recently determined that these are most likely EpCAM-positive microparticles, which are extracellular vesicles containing antigen from the parent cell [14]. They have been found only in malignant effusions and their detection can improve the sensitivity and specificity of the cytological examination. We have also seen some tumor cells in the CD45-positive fraction in cases with large numbers of tumor cells. We hypothesized that these are tumor fragments that have adhered to or been endocytosed by hematopoietic elements. Again, the presence of EpCAM-positive micoparticles can account for these events as well.

Fig. 2

Flow cytometric gating strategy for epithelial neoplasms. The majority of cells in the forward vs. side scatter gate should be included in the analysis for maximum sensitivity. Use of the singlet gate eliminates clusters of cells that may complicate the interpretation of subsequent gates. CD45 and CD14 are used to exclude hematopoietic cells and monocytes. Ber-EP4 (EpCAM)+ cells are epithelial cells. The dot plots in b are the same as those in a, but they are back-gated to show the locations of Ber-EP4-positive cells in all of the plots. Reprinted with permission from Pillai et al. [3].

http://www.karger.com/WebMaterial/ShowPic/517240

One pitfall of using EpCAM alone for flow cytometric analysis of epithelial neoplasms is that a small proportion of epithelial neoplasms do not express EpCAM [8]. However, as is well known with immunohistochemistry, multiple antibodies are needed for improved sensitivity and specificity. Given the increasing prevalence of multiparameter FC, it is relatively straightforward to add more antibodies to the panel. Other antigens that have been tested for the detection of epithelial cells by FC include claudin 4, B-72.3, EMA, CEA, and CD15 [4,15]. Another pitfall of EpCAM-based FC is that EpCAM-positive events can rarely be found in negative serous effusions and lymph nodes in very low numbers, and it is not clear at present whether these represent nonspecific background staining or true epithelial cells. Nonspecific staining can be identified by its pattern of flow cytometric staining (dim, scattered rather than clustered, diagonal ‘rocket' population), but it is sometimes difficult to differentiate it from true low-level staining. Benign epithelial cells can sometimes be present in lymph nodes and effusions [16]. Mesothelial cell inclusions have been noted in lymph nodes, but mesothelial cells are negative for EpCAM and positive for other keratins [17]. In contrast, specimens such as bronchoalveolar lavage and peritoneal washes always contain normal EpCAM-positive epithelial cells that are difficult to distinguish from malignant cells by FC. Most studies exclude these samples from their analysis for that reason.

One approach to distinguishing benign from malignant cells by FC is through DNA ploidy analysis since tumor cells frequently show a polyploid or aneuploid tumor content compared to benign cells that have a normal, diploid DNA content [18]. Numerous studies have shown that DNA ploidy has a predictive and prognostic value in epithelial tumors. Image cytometry is suggested as a better way to measure DNA ploidy because it can combine morphological analysis with ploidy [19]. However, FC has the advantage of analyzing surface and cytoplasmic markers concurrently, which can help to identify the malignant cell population accurately. Measurement of the DNA content in isolation without any epithelial markers has not been found to increase diagnostic specificity [11,12,13]. Another promising approach to distinguishing benign from malignant cells is the use of flow cytometric measurement of the nucleus-to-cytoplasm (N:C) ratio. Automated FC based on the DNA content and the N:C ratio shows a high specificity (and similar sensitivity) compared to the HPV Hybrid Capture 2 system in the analysis of cervical cytology samples [20]. Another approach for the identification of malignant cells is the use of antibody-coated magnetic beads. The commercially available circulating tumor cell assay system CellSearch® from Veridex essentially combines EpCAM magnetic bead sorting with flow cytometric detection of cytokeratin-positive events and visual confirmation of positive events. Newer circulating tumor cell assays have tried to develop cell size- and cell property-based methods that do not utilize EpCAM given that some epithelial neoplasms may be EpCAM negative.

The expression level of EpCAM has a prognostic significance in breast and ovarian cancers [8]. The EpCAM- and CD3-targeting biantibody catumaxomab is effective for the treatment of malignant ascites due to ovarian cancer [21]. The anti-EpCAM bispecific monoclonal antibody solitumomab is in clinical trials for solid tumors [22]. Flow cytometric assessment of EpCAM expression could be useful in determining the level of EpCAM expression and its correlation with treatment response when these therapeutic antibodies are used.

Nonhematopoietic Neoplasms in Lymph Nodes

Lymph nodes are similar to effusions in that they normally lack epithelial cells. Hence, the flow cytometric approach detailed above can also be used to detect malignant epithelial cells in lymph node biopsies or FNA specimens (useful antigens are summarized in table 1). In many cases, FC is routinely performed on lymph nodes to rule out lymphoma and an additional analysis for EpCAM-positive cells can be easily added to the analysis if an epithelial malignancy is in the differential diagnosis [23]. The flow cytometric panel can be further extended to identify other solid tumors in tissues as well. Finely mincing tissue will yield sufficient cells for immunophenotypic analysis in many cases. Enzymatic digestion has been suggested to improve the yield, but it can also cleave surface antigens of interest and is not recommended. Tissue homogenizers that are used in routine FC may fragment the tumor cells and need further investigation. A pediatric cancer FC panel that was used on a wide variety of tissue samples revealed distinct immunophenotypes for neuroblastoma (CD56hi/GD2+/CD81hi), primitive neuroectodermal tumors (CD271hi/CD99+), Wilms' tumor (CD56+, multiple populations), rhabdomyosarcoma (MYOD1+/myogenin+), germ cell tumors (CD56+/CD45-/NG2+/CD10+), and hemangiopericytomas (CD45-/CD34+) [24]. A high concordance was demonstrated between morphological and immunohistochemical findings and flow cytometric characterization. Although subclassification and a definitive diagnosis require morphological assessment, the advantage of flow cytometric analysis in this situation is that it provides a rapid, same-day immunophenotypic characterization. As is the case in the characterization of hematopoietic neoplasms, FC adds to the morphological diagnosis and is not meant to be a stand-alone technique since there will be neoplasms that cannot be detected or fully characterized by flow cytometric analysis alone. Another caveat is that rare malignant cells in lymph nodes may be lost during processing or may not be at a level higher than the background. Hence, FC should be used only for characterization of lymph nodes that are clearly involved by tumor and not for sentinel node assessment, for example.

Table 1

Typical flow cytometric findings in specific nonhematopoietic neoplasms

http://www.karger.com/WebMaterial/ShowPic/517242

Flow Cytometric Evaluation of CSF Samples

Leptomeninges are a frequent site of metastasis, and CSF examination is routine in hematological malignancies. CSF samples are unique given the limited amount of fluid available to make a definitive diagnosis. Lymphocytes and monocytes are the predominant cells found in CSF, and any aberrant cells present can be identified in cytological preparations. Cytological examination is the gold standard for diagnosis, but a proportion of patients can have false-negative results. Similar to effusions, multiple specimens are needed for a higher sensitivity [25]. As is the case with serous effusions, frequently there are too few cells that can be definitively identified by morphological or immunohistochemical assessment. Furthermore, an early diagnosis is needed in order to initiate definitive treatment and limit neurological morbidity. FC is a sensitive technique for the detection of abnormal lymphoid populations in CSF [26,27]. Flow cytometric analysis shows a high sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of carcinomatous meningitis [28,29]. The utility of FC lies in the ability to immunophenotype rare cells. Rapid degeneration of CSF specimens, a low volume and cellularity, blood contamination, and nonspecific background fluorescence are technical issues that need to be resolved [26]. It is suggested that at least 5 ml of fluid and 100 cells need to be analyzed, with a cluster of at least 10 events in order to consider a result positive. RPMI-based serum solutions of Earle's balanced salt solution with albumin can be used to prevent cell degeneration in CSF specimens. Minimization of cell washing steps and gentle centrifugation are helpful as well. Performance of all of the steps in microcentrifuge tubes can also minimize cell loss. Nonspecific fluorescence can limit the sensitivity of the assay and can be minimized by appropriate color combinations and titration. A similar approach can also be used in limited FNA samples.

Flow Cytometric Evaluation of Small-Round-Blue-Cell Tumors

FC is useful in the differential diagnosis of small-round-blue-cell tumors. CD56, CD99, and myogenin can be used to subtype these tumors [9,23,24]. CD56 is a neural cell adhesion molecule that is expressed on NK cells and neurons. CD56 is expressed by tumors of neural origin, including neuroblastoma and small-cell lung cancer (fig. 3, 4). CD56 is widely used in FC labs for immunophenotyping of large granular lymphocytes and NK cells, and hence it can be easily adapted to detect nonhematopoietic tumors as well. Neuroblastoma is also positive for CD81, CD9, and GD2 [9]. GD2 is a disialoganglioside that is normally expressed in the brain and overexpressed on tumors of neuroectodermal origin. Myogenin and MYOD1 are muscle-specific transcription factors that are expressed by a majority of rhabdomyosarcomas [30]. CD99 is a cell surface glycoprotein that is normally expressed by cortical thymocytes and some epithelial cells and it is frequently used to identify lymphoblastic lymphoma/leukemia and Ewing sarcoma/primitive neuroectodermal tumors [9].

Fig. 3

Representative flow cytometric analysis of small-cell carcinoma. A 45-year-old man presented with shortness of breath, facial swelling, weight loss, fever, and a right hilar mass involving the superior vena cava, and he was suspected to have an aggressive lymphoma. a FNA revealed the presence of cells with a high N:C ratio, present individually and in clusters. b By flow cytometric analysis, the neoplastic cells were found to be negative for hematopoietic cell markers, including CD45, B-cell, and T-cell markers (data not shown), but they were positive for CD56, but not CD16, consistent with small-cell carcinoma.

http://www.karger.com/WebMaterial/ShowPic/517239

Fig. 4

Representative flow cytometric analysis of a neuroblastoma. Flow cytometric analysis was performed on a bone marrow aspirate from a 6-year-old boy with an adrenal mass. A large population of CD45-dim-to-negative, CD56-positive cells is present, which is negative for CD2 and other lymphoid and myeloid markers (data not shown), consistent with involvement by a nonhematopoietic tumor. The image is courtesy of Dr. Michele Paessler.

http://www.karger.com/WebMaterial/ShowPic/517238

FC has been utilized to detect neuroblastoma in bone marrow specimens [31]. Approximately 50% of patients with neuroblastoma have bone marrow metastases at diagnosis, which is associated with a poor overall survival [32]. CD56 and GD2 are useful markers for flow cytometric detection of neuroblastoma. Although neuroblastoma occurs as clusters in bone marrow aspirate preparations, frequently there are admixed single cells that can be detected by routine FC. Not infrequently, lymphoblastic leukemia is in the differential diagnosis, and neuroblastoma is identified by the presence of a CD45-negative, CD56-positive aberrant population (fig. 4). FC has also been used to detect MRD after treatment in neuroblastoma patients [33]. The sensitivity depends partly on the total numbers of events collected. For example, routine FC, in which up to 100,000 events are analyzed, can detect 1 in 10,000 cells or 10-20 positive events. MRD flow cytometric analysis for the assessment of acute leukemia MRD routinely analyzes 1-5 million events and has a higher sensitivity compared to routine FC [2]. GD2 immunocytology and tyrosine hydroxylase RT-PCR have also been used to detect MRD in neuroblastoma, and they are thought to have a higher level of sensitivity (i.e. 1 in 1,000,000 cells) [34,35]. However, immunocytochemistry and RT-PCR are time-consuming and labor-intensive techniques. Multiparametric MRD flow cytometric analysis has not been tested rigorously in the assessment of bone marrow samples involved by neuroblastoma, and it may be able to detect low-level disease similarly to immunocytochemistry and RT-PCR.

Future Directions

FC technology is rapidly evolving. Mass spectrometry-based flow cytometers that use heavy metal ions rather than fluorochromes are being used in research applications. This has enabled simultaneous measurement of as many as 40 immunophenotypic parameters [36,37]. Preliminary results are promising for the characterization of clinical samples involved by hematopoietic neoplasms. Manual gating is difficult with such technologies and automated gating strategies are proposed to analyze complex multiparametric data [38]. Molecular techniques are increasingly being used for clinical diagnosis, but they are sometimes limited by low levels of disease involvement. The combination of flow cytometric cell sorting and a subsequent molecular analysis will be helpful in obtaining additional diagnostic information from clinical samples with low-level disease or limited FNA or body fluid samples. Information about clonal evolution and medically relevant subpopulations can also be obtained through flow cytometric cell sorting.

Disclosure Statement

The authors have no conflicts of interest to report.


References

  1. Swerdlow SH, Campo E, Harris NL, Jaffe ES, Pileri SA, Stein H, Thiele J, Vardiman JW: WHO Classification of Tumours of Haematopoietic and Lymphoid Tissues, ed 4. Lyon, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 2008.
  2. Wood BL: Principles of minimal residual disease detection for hematopoietic neoplasms by flow cytometry. Cytometry B Clin Cytom 2016;90:47-53.
  3. Pillai V, Cibas ES, Dorfman DM: A simplified flow cytometric immunophenotyping procedure for the diagnosis of effusions caused by epithelial malignancies. Am J Clin Pathol 2013;139:672-681.
  4. Davidson B, Dong HP, Holth A, Berner A, Risberg B: Flow cytometric immunophenotyping of cancer cells in effusion specimens: diagnostic and research applications. Diagn Cytopathol 2007;35:568-578.
  5. Acosta M, Pereira J, Arroz M: Screening of carcinoma metastasis by flow cytometry: a study of 238 cases. Cytometry B Clin Cytom 2016;90:289-294.
  6. Risberg B, Davidson B, Dong HP, Nesland JM, Berner A: Flow cytometric immunophenotyping of serous effusions and peritoneal washings: comparison with immunocytochemistry and morphological findings. J Clin Pathol 2000;53:513-517.
  7. Litvinov SV, Velders MP, Bakker HA, Fleuren GJ, Warnaar SO: Ep-CAM: a human epithelial antigen is a homophilic cell-cell adhesion molecule. J Cell Biol 1994;125:437-446.
  8. Patriarca C, Macchi RM, Marschner AK, Mellstedt H: Epithelial cell adhesion molecule expression (CD326) in cancer: a short review. Cancer Treat Rev 2012;38:68-75.
  9. Went PTH, Lugli A, Meier S, Bundi M, Mirlacher M, Sauter G, Dirnhofer S: Frequent EpCam protein expression in human carcinomas. Hum Pathol 2004;35:122-128.
  10. Motherby H Nadjari B, Friegel P, Kohaus J, Ramp U, Bocking A: Diagnostic accuracy of effusion cytology. Diagn Cytopathol 1999;20:350-357.
  11. Kentrou NA, Tsagarakis NK, Tzanetou K, Damala M, Papadimitriou KA, Skoumi D, Stratigaki A, Anagnostopoulos NI, Malamou-Lada E, Athanassiadou P, Paterakis G: An improved flow cytometric assay for detection and discrimination between malignant cells and atypical mesothelial cells, in serous cavity effusions. Cytometry B Clin Cytom 2011;80:324-334.
  12. Sayed DM, el-Attar MM, Hussein AA: Evaluation of flow cytometric immunophenotyping and DNA analysis for detection of malignant cells in serosal cavity fluids. Diagn Cytopathol 2009;37:498-504.
  13. Krishan A, Ganjei-Azar P, Hamelik R, Sharma D, Reis I, Nadji M: Flow immunocytochemistry of marker expression in cells from body cavity fluids. Cytometry A 2010;77:132-143.
  14. Roca E, Lacroix R, Judicone C, Laroumagne S, Robert S, Cointe S, Muller A, Kaspi E, Roll P, Brisson AR, Tantucci C, Astoul P, Dignat-George F: Detection of EpCAM-positive microparticles in pleural fluid: a new approach to mini-invasively identify patients with malignant pleural effusions. Oncotarget 2016;7:3357-3366.
  15. Lonardi S, Manera C, Marucci R, Santoro A, Lorenzi L, Facchetti F: Usefulness of Claudin 4 in the cytological diagnosis of serosal effusions. Diagn Cytopathol 2011;39:313-317.
  16. Fellegara G, Carcangiu ML, Rosai J: Benign epithelial inclusions in axillary lymph nodes: report of 18 cases and review of the literature. Am J Surg Pathol 2011;35:1123-1133.
  17. Kim HS, Yoon G, Lee YY, Kim TJ, Choi CH, Lee JW, Kim BG, Bae DS, Song SY: Mesothelial cell inclusions in pelvic and para-aortic lymph nodes: a clinicopathologic analysis. Int J Clin Exp Pathol 2015;8:5318-5326.
    External Resources
  18. Danielsen HE, Pradhan M, Novelli M: Revisiting tumour aneuploidy - the place of ploidy assessment in the molecular era. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2016;13:291-304.
  19. Darzynkiewicz Z, Halicka HD, Zhao H: Analysis of cellular DNA content by flow and laser scanning cytometry. Adv Exp Med Biol 2010;676:137-147.
  20. Han X, Ping B, Morita M, Ebi R, Inoue J, Tanaka Y, Chen Y, Wan X, Yang W, Chang B, Wu X: A novel highly sensitive and specific flow cytometry system for cervical cancer screening. Gynecol Oncol 2015;139:52-58.
  21. Tsikouras P, Tsagias N, Pinidis P, Csorba R, Vrachnis N, Dafopoulos A, Bouchlarioutou S, Liberis A, Teichmann AT, von Tempelhoff GF: The contribution of catumaxomab in the treatment of malignant ascites in patients with ovarian cancer: a review of the literature. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2013;288:581-585.
  22. English DP, Bellone S, Schwab CL, Roque DM, Lopez S, Bortolomai I, Cocco E, Bonassoli E, Chatterjee S, Ratner E, Silasi D-A, Azodi M, Schwartz PE, Rutherford TJ, Santin AD: Solitomab, an epithelial cell adhesion molecule/CD3 bispecific antibody (BiTE), is highly active against primary chemotherapy-resistant ovarian cancer cell lines in vitro and fresh tumor cells ex vivo. Cancer 2015;121:403-412.
  23. Chang A, Benda PM, Wood BL, Kussick SJ: Lineage-specific identification of nonhematopoietic neoplasms by flow cytometry. Am J Clin Pathol 2003;119:643-655.
  24. Ferreira-Facio CS, Milito C, Botafogo V, Fontana M, Thiago LS, Olivera E, da Rocha-Filho AS, Werneck F, Forny DN, Dekermacher S, de Azambuja AP, Ferman SE, de Faria PAS, Land MGP, Orfao A, Costa ES: Contribution of multiparameter flow cytometry immunophenotyping to the diagnostic screening and classification of pediatric cancer. PLoS One 2013;8:e55534.
  25. Glantz MJ, Cole BF, Glantz LK, Cobb J, Mills P, Lekos A, Walters BC, Recht LD: Cerebrospinal fluid cytology in patients with cancer: minimizing false-negative results. Cancer 1998;82:733-739.
  26. de Graaf MT, de Jongste AHC, Kraan J, Boonstra JG, Sillevis Smitt PAE, Gratma JW: Flow cytometric characterization of cerebrospinal fluid cells. Cytometry B Clin Cytom 2011;80:271-281.
  27. French CA, Dorfman DM, Shaheen G, Cibas ES: Diagnosing lymphoproliferative disorders involving the cerebrospinal fluid: increased sensitivity using flow cytometric analysis. Diagn Cytopathol 2000;23:369-374.
  28. Milojkovic Kerklaan B, Plum D, Bol M, Hofland I, Westerga J, van Tinteren H, Beijnen JH, Boogerd W, Schellens JHM, Brandsma D: EpCAM-based flow cytometry in cerebrospinal fluid greatly improves diagnostic accuracy of leptomeningeal metastases from epithelial tumors. Neuro Oncol 2016;18:855-862.
  29. Subira D, Serrano C, Gonzalo R, Illan J, Pardo J, Martinez-Garcia M, Millastre E, Aparisi F, Navarro M, Domine M, Gil-Bazo I, Perez Segura P, Gil M, Bruna J: Role of flow cytometry immunophenotyping in the diagnosis of leptomeningeal carcinomatosis. Neuro Oncol 2012;14:43-52.
  30. Kumar S, Perlman E, Harris CA, Raffeld M, Tsokos M: Myogenin is a specific marker for rhabdomyosarcoma: an immunohistochemical study in paraffin-embedded tissues. Mod Pathol 2000;13:988-993.
  31. Beiske K, Ambros PF, Burchill SA, Cheung IY, Swerts K: Detecting minimal residual disease in neuroblastoma patients - the present state of the art. Cancer Lett 2005;228:229-240.
  32. Morandi F, Corrias MV, Pistoia V: Evaluation of bone marrow as a metastatic site of human neuroblastoma. Ann NY Acad Sci 2015;1335:23-31.
  33. Cai JY, Pan C, Tang Y-J: Minimal residual disease is a prognostic marker for neuroblastoma with bone marrow infiltration. Am J Clin Oncol 2012;35:275-278.
  34. Beiske K, Burchill SA, Cheung IY, Hiyama E, Seeger RC, Cohn SL, Pearson ADJ, Matthay KK: Consensus criteria for sensitive detection of minimal neuroblastoma cells in bone marrow, blood and stem cell preparations by immunocytology and QRT-PCR: recommendations by the International Neuroblastoma Risk Group Task Force. Br J Cancer 2009;100:1627-1637.
  35. Ifversen M, Kagedal B, Christensen, L, Rechnitzer C, Petersen B, Heilmann C: Comparison of immunocytochemistry, real-time quantitative RT-PCR and flow cytometry for detection of minimal residual disease in neuroblastoma. Int J Oncol 2005;27:121-129.
  36. Leipold MD, Newell EW, Maecker HT: Multiparameter phenotyping of human PBMCs using mass cytometry. Methods Mol Biol 2015;1343:81-95.
  37. Yao Y, Liu R, Shin MS, Trentalange M, Allore H, Nassar A, Kang I, Pober JS, Montgomery RR: CyTOF supports efficient detection of immune cell subsets from small samples. J Immunol Methods 2014;415:1-5.
  38. Mair F, Hartmann FJ, Mrdjen D, Tosevski V, Krieg C, Becher B: The end of gating? An introduction to automated analysis of high dimensional cytometry data. Eur J Immunol 2016;46:34-43.

Author Contacts

Correspondence to: Dr. David M. Dorfman

Department of Pathology, Brigham and Women's Hospital

75 Francis Street

Boston, MA 02115 (USA)

E-Mail ddorfman@partners.org


Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview
Abstract of Review

Received: June 13, 2016
Accepted: July 12, 2016
Published online: August 27, 2016
Issue release date: July – August

Number of Print Pages: 8
Number of Figures: 4
Number of Tables: 1

ISSN: 0001-5547 (Print)
eISSN: 1938-2650 (Online)

For additional information: https://www.karger.com/ACY


Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer

Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

References

  1. Swerdlow SH, Campo E, Harris NL, Jaffe ES, Pileri SA, Stein H, Thiele J, Vardiman JW: WHO Classification of Tumours of Haematopoietic and Lymphoid Tissues, ed 4. Lyon, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 2008.
  2. Wood BL: Principles of minimal residual disease detection for hematopoietic neoplasms by flow cytometry. Cytometry B Clin Cytom 2016;90:47-53.
  3. Pillai V, Cibas ES, Dorfman DM: A simplified flow cytometric immunophenotyping procedure for the diagnosis of effusions caused by epithelial malignancies. Am J Clin Pathol 2013;139:672-681.
  4. Davidson B, Dong HP, Holth A, Berner A, Risberg B: Flow cytometric immunophenotyping of cancer cells in effusion specimens: diagnostic and research applications. Diagn Cytopathol 2007;35:568-578.
  5. Acosta M, Pereira J, Arroz M: Screening of carcinoma metastasis by flow cytometry: a study of 238 cases. Cytometry B Clin Cytom 2016;90:289-294.
  6. Risberg B, Davidson B, Dong HP, Nesland JM, Berner A: Flow cytometric immunophenotyping of serous effusions and peritoneal washings: comparison with immunocytochemistry and morphological findings. J Clin Pathol 2000;53:513-517.
  7. Litvinov SV, Velders MP, Bakker HA, Fleuren GJ, Warnaar SO: Ep-CAM: a human epithelial antigen is a homophilic cell-cell adhesion molecule. J Cell Biol 1994;125:437-446.
  8. Patriarca C, Macchi RM, Marschner AK, Mellstedt H: Epithelial cell adhesion molecule expression (CD326) in cancer: a short review. Cancer Treat Rev 2012;38:68-75.
  9. Went PTH, Lugli A, Meier S, Bundi M, Mirlacher M, Sauter G, Dirnhofer S: Frequent EpCam protein expression in human carcinomas. Hum Pathol 2004;35:122-128.
  10. Motherby H Nadjari B, Friegel P, Kohaus J, Ramp U, Bocking A: Diagnostic accuracy of effusion cytology. Diagn Cytopathol 1999;20:350-357.
  11. Kentrou NA, Tsagarakis NK, Tzanetou K, Damala M, Papadimitriou KA, Skoumi D, Stratigaki A, Anagnostopoulos NI, Malamou-Lada E, Athanassiadou P, Paterakis G: An improved flow cytometric assay for detection and discrimination between malignant cells and atypical mesothelial cells, in serous cavity effusions. Cytometry B Clin Cytom 2011;80:324-334.
  12. Sayed DM, el-Attar MM, Hussein AA: Evaluation of flow cytometric immunophenotyping and DNA analysis for detection of malignant cells in serosal cavity fluids. Diagn Cytopathol 2009;37:498-504.
  13. Krishan A, Ganjei-Azar P, Hamelik R, Sharma D, Reis I, Nadji M: Flow immunocytochemistry of marker expression in cells from body cavity fluids. Cytometry A 2010;77:132-143.
  14. Roca E, Lacroix R, Judicone C, Laroumagne S, Robert S, Cointe S, Muller A, Kaspi E, Roll P, Brisson AR, Tantucci C, Astoul P, Dignat-George F: Detection of EpCAM-positive microparticles in pleural fluid: a new approach to mini-invasively identify patients with malignant pleural effusions. Oncotarget 2016;7:3357-3366.
  15. Lonardi S, Manera C, Marucci R, Santoro A, Lorenzi L, Facchetti F: Usefulness of Claudin 4 in the cytological diagnosis of serosal effusions. Diagn Cytopathol 2011;39:313-317.
  16. Fellegara G, Carcangiu ML, Rosai J: Benign epithelial inclusions in axillary lymph nodes: report of 18 cases and review of the literature. Am J Surg Pathol 2011;35:1123-1133.
  17. Kim HS, Yoon G, Lee YY, Kim TJ, Choi CH, Lee JW, Kim BG, Bae DS, Song SY: Mesothelial cell inclusions in pelvic and para-aortic lymph nodes: a clinicopathologic analysis. Int J Clin Exp Pathol 2015;8:5318-5326.
    External Resources
  18. Danielsen HE, Pradhan M, Novelli M: Revisiting tumour aneuploidy - the place of ploidy assessment in the molecular era. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2016;13:291-304.
  19. Darzynkiewicz Z, Halicka HD, Zhao H: Analysis of cellular DNA content by flow and laser scanning cytometry. Adv Exp Med Biol 2010;676:137-147.
  20. Han X, Ping B, Morita M, Ebi R, Inoue J, Tanaka Y, Chen Y, Wan X, Yang W, Chang B, Wu X: A novel highly sensitive and specific flow cytometry system for cervical cancer screening. Gynecol Oncol 2015;139:52-58.
  21. Tsikouras P, Tsagias N, Pinidis P, Csorba R, Vrachnis N, Dafopoulos A, Bouchlarioutou S, Liberis A, Teichmann AT, von Tempelhoff GF: The contribution of catumaxomab in the treatment of malignant ascites in patients with ovarian cancer: a review of the literature. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2013;288:581-585.
  22. English DP, Bellone S, Schwab CL, Roque DM, Lopez S, Bortolomai I, Cocco E, Bonassoli E, Chatterjee S, Ratner E, Silasi D-A, Azodi M, Schwartz PE, Rutherford TJ, Santin AD: Solitomab, an epithelial cell adhesion molecule/CD3 bispecific antibody (BiTE), is highly active against primary chemotherapy-resistant ovarian cancer cell lines in vitro and fresh tumor cells ex vivo. Cancer 2015;121:403-412.
  23. Chang A, Benda PM, Wood BL, Kussick SJ: Lineage-specific identification of nonhematopoietic neoplasms by flow cytometry. Am J Clin Pathol 2003;119:643-655.
  24. Ferreira-Facio CS, Milito C, Botafogo V, Fontana M, Thiago LS, Olivera E, da Rocha-Filho AS, Werneck F, Forny DN, Dekermacher S, de Azambuja AP, Ferman SE, de Faria PAS, Land MGP, Orfao A, Costa ES: Contribution of multiparameter flow cytometry immunophenotyping to the diagnostic screening and classification of pediatric cancer. PLoS One 2013;8:e55534.
  25. Glantz MJ, Cole BF, Glantz LK, Cobb J, Mills P, Lekos A, Walters BC, Recht LD: Cerebrospinal fluid cytology in patients with cancer: minimizing false-negative results. Cancer 1998;82:733-739.
  26. de Graaf MT, de Jongste AHC, Kraan J, Boonstra JG, Sillevis Smitt PAE, Gratma JW: Flow cytometric characterization of cerebrospinal fluid cells. Cytometry B Clin Cytom 2011;80:271-281.
  27. French CA, Dorfman DM, Shaheen G, Cibas ES: Diagnosing lymphoproliferative disorders involving the cerebrospinal fluid: increased sensitivity using flow cytometric analysis. Diagn Cytopathol 2000;23:369-374.
  28. Milojkovic Kerklaan B, Plum D, Bol M, Hofland I, Westerga J, van Tinteren H, Beijnen JH, Boogerd W, Schellens JHM, Brandsma D: EpCAM-based flow cytometry in cerebrospinal fluid greatly improves diagnostic accuracy of leptomeningeal metastases from epithelial tumors. Neuro Oncol 2016;18:855-862.
  29. Subira D, Serrano C, Gonzalo R, Illan J, Pardo J, Martinez-Garcia M, Millastre E, Aparisi F, Navarro M, Domine M, Gil-Bazo I, Perez Segura P, Gil M, Bruna J: Role of flow cytometry immunophenotyping in the diagnosis of leptomeningeal carcinomatosis. Neuro Oncol 2012;14:43-52.
  30. Kumar S, Perlman E, Harris CA, Raffeld M, Tsokos M: Myogenin is a specific marker for rhabdomyosarcoma: an immunohistochemical study in paraffin-embedded tissues. Mod Pathol 2000;13:988-993.
  31. Beiske K, Ambros PF, Burchill SA, Cheung IY, Swerts K: Detecting minimal residual disease in neuroblastoma patients - the present state of the art. Cancer Lett 2005;228:229-240.
  32. Morandi F, Corrias MV, Pistoia V: Evaluation of bone marrow as a metastatic site of human neuroblastoma. Ann NY Acad Sci 2015;1335:23-31.
  33. Cai JY, Pan C, Tang Y-J: Minimal residual disease is a prognostic marker for neuroblastoma with bone marrow infiltration. Am J Clin Oncol 2012;35:275-278.
  34. Beiske K, Burchill SA, Cheung IY, Hiyama E, Seeger RC, Cohn SL, Pearson ADJ, Matthay KK: Consensus criteria for sensitive detection of minimal neuroblastoma cells in bone marrow, blood and stem cell preparations by immunocytology and QRT-PCR: recommendations by the International Neuroblastoma Risk Group Task Force. Br J Cancer 2009;100:1627-1637.
  35. Ifversen M, Kagedal B, Christensen, L, Rechnitzer C, Petersen B, Heilmann C: Comparison of immunocytochemistry, real-time quantitative RT-PCR and flow cytometry for detection of minimal residual disease in neuroblastoma. Int J Oncol 2005;27:121-129.
  36. Leipold MD, Newell EW, Maecker HT: Multiparameter phenotyping of human PBMCs using mass cytometry. Methods Mol Biol 2015;1343:81-95.
  37. Yao Y, Liu R, Shin MS, Trentalange M, Allore H, Nassar A, Kang I, Pober JS, Montgomery RR: CyTOF supports efficient detection of immune cell subsets from small samples. J Immunol Methods 2014;415:1-5.
  38. Mair F, Hartmann FJ, Mrdjen D, Tosevski V, Krieg C, Becher B: The end of gating? An introduction to automated analysis of high dimensional cytometry data. Eur J Immunol 2016;46:34-43.
ppt logo Download Images (.pptx)


Figures
Thumbnail
Thumbnail
Thumbnail
Thumbnail

Tables
Thumbnail