Simple and rapid flow cytometry assay for the detection of malignant epithelial cells in body fluids

Thulasi Raman Ramalingam,Sandeep Mani,Swetha Narla,Archana Lakshmanan,Anurekha Muthu,Harsha Rasheed Nk,Selvaraj Mohanraj,Ellapan Dharma Ramachandran,Annapurneswari Subramanyam,Lakshman Vaidhyanathan
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/cyt.13408
2024-06-06
Cytopathology
Abstract:FCM is used as an effective tool for studying non‐haematological malignancies. We have studied a simple and rapid flow cytometry (FCM) test for the detection of malignant epithelial cells in body fluids. We developed an antibody panel composed only of surface markers for this FCM assay to enable faster results. We compared the results of cytology/cell block and FCM. FCM would become a valuable tool to complement routine diagnostic cytology and reduces misdiagnosis. A simple and rapid flow cytometry test has been developed for the detection of malignant epithelial cells in body fluids. This FCM assay is simple, easier and cost‐effective, yielding sensitive results with no inter‐observer variability. This technique will improve the diagnostic accuracy, serving as a valuable adjunct to cytology and cell block analysis. Introduction Morphology is routinely used for detecting malignant cells in body fluids, but it has limitations. Recently, flow cytometry (FCM) is used as an effective tool for studying non‐haematological malignancies. The main objective of this study is to standardize a simple and rapid FCM test for the detection of malignant epithelial cells in body fluids. Materials and Methods Body fluids that had been processed for cytology/cytology and FCM were enrolled in this prospective study. We developed a fluorescent‐labelled, monoclonal antibody panel composed of cell surface markers for this FCM assay. We compared the results of cytology/cell block and FCM. Results A total of 121 fluid samples were studied. Comparing the diagnostic performance of cytology/cell block and FCM, 52 (43%) cases were positive and 60 (49.5%) cases were negative for carcinoma cells by both techniques. Nine cases showed discordant results between the two techniques. Six cases were cytology+ but FCM‐ and three cases were FCM+ cytology‐. Clustered Epithelial Cell Adhesion Molecule (EpCAM)‐positive events with high scatter properties were definitive for positive diagnosis by FCM. We studied PD‐L1 expression in 13 cases by FCM. Six cases were reported as false negative by this FCM assay due to hypocellularity and lack of EpCAM expression in malignant cells. Conclusions This FCM assay is simple, easier and cost‐effective yielding sensitive results with no inter‐observer variability. FCM would become a valuable tool to complement routine diagnostic cytology and reduces misdiagnosis.
pathology,cell biology
What problem does this paper attempt to address?