The Usefulness of Immunocytochemistry of CD56 in Determining Malignancy from Indeterminate Thyroid Fine-Needle Aspiration Cytology
- Author:
Hyunseo CHA
1
;
Ju Yeon PYO
;
Soon Won HONG
Author Information
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords: Biopsy, fine-needle; Thyroid fine-needle aspiration; Immunohistochemical staining; CD56; HBME-1
- MeSH: Biopsy, Fine-Needle; Bone Marrow; Cytoplasm; Diagnosis; Diagnosis, Differential; Endothelial Cells; Humans; Immunohistochemistry; Methods; Sensitivity and Specificity; Thyroid Gland; Thyroid Nodule
- From:Journal of Pathology and Translational Medicine 2018;52(6):404-410
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
- Abstract: 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.
