April 2009
Volume 50, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   April 2009
Association Between Gene Expression Profile Classification and Cytopathologic Cell Type of Melanocytic Uveal Tumors Evaluated by FNAB
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Z. M. Correa
    Ophthalmology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio
  • J. J. Augsburger
    Ophthalmology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio
  • C. C. Simoes
    Ophthalmology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio
  • J. W. Harbour
    Ophthalmology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  Z.M. Correa, None; J.J. Augsburger, None; C.C. Simoes, None; J.W. Harbour, None.
  • Footnotes
    Support  NEI grant EY02687,NCI grant R01CA125970, Kling Family Foundation,Tumori Foundation,Barnes-Jewish Hosp Foundation, Horncrest Foundation, Research to Prevent Blindness,Quest for Vision Fund-U Cincinnati
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science April 2009, Vol.50, 5237. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Z. M. Correa, J. J. Augsburger, C. C. Simoes, J. W. Harbour; Association Between Gene Expression Profile Classification and Cytopathologic Cell Type of Melanocytic Uveal Tumors Evaluated by FNAB. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2009;50(13):5237.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose: : To determine whether there is any relationship between Gene Expression Profiling (GEP) classification and cytopathologic diagnosis of melanocytic uveal tumors sampled by fine needle aspiration biopsy (FNAB).

Methods: : Samples from 44 melanocytic uveal tumors were obtained by FNAB. In each case, at least 2 samples were obtained and evaluated cytopathologically for melanocytic cell type and by GEP for the presence of the Class 1 (favorable) versus Class 2 (unfavorable) signature. The relationship between GEP and cytopathologic classification of tumor cells was evaluated by cross tabulation analysis.

Results: : The cytopathologic diagnosis was melanocytic nevus in 1 case, borderline melanocytic uveal tumor in 4 cases, spindle cell melanoma in 10 cases, mixed cell melanoma in 8 cases, epithelioid cell and/or necrotic melanoma in 12 cases, and uveal melanoma of unspecified cell type in 3 cases. Six of the 44 tumors (13.6%) yielded an insufficient specimen for cytodiagnosis even though they had been sampled in 2 or more sites. In contrast, FNAB yielded a sufficient specimen for GEP in all 44 cases. Twenty five cases (56.8%) were categorized as Class 1 and 19 (43.2%) were categorized as Class 2. The cytodiagnosis for Class 1 tumors was epithelioid cell and/or necrotic melanoma in 6 cases, mixed cell or unspecified melanoma in 5, insufficient for diagnosis in 5, spindle cell melanoma in 5, borderline in 3, and nevus in 1 case. The cytodiagnosis for Class 2 tumors was epithelioid cell and/or necrotic melanoma in 6 cases, mixed cell or unspecified melanoma in 6, spindle cell melanoma in 5, borderline in 1, and insufficient for diagnosis in 1 case. The cytodiagnosis was non-melanoma or indeterminate in 9 Class 1 tumors and 2 Class 2 tumors, and it was definite melanoma in 16 Class 1 tumors and 17 Class 2 tumors. This difference did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.081, Fisher exact test).

Keywords: melanoma • gene/expression • oncology 
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×