Translate this page into:
Diagnostic pitfalls in effusion fluid cytology
*Corresponding author: Vinod B. Shidham, MD, FIAC, FRCPath, Department of Pathology, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Karmanos Cancer Center and Detroit Medical Center, Detroit, Michigan, United States. vshidham@med.wayne.edu
-
Received: ,
Accepted: ,
How to cite this article: Shidham VB. Diagnostic pitfalls in effusion fluid cytology. CytoJournal 2021;18:33.
Abstract
Effusion fluid cytology has propensity for both false positives (in up to 0.5%) and false negatives (in up to 30%) results. Methodical approach from collection step to final interpretation stage could prevent both false positives and false negatives, if the interpreter is familiar with various factors responsible for diagnostic pitfalls in effusion fluid cytology. For this discussion, these factors are categorized as mentioned below:
Surface tension-related alterations in cytomorphology Improper specimen processing Many faces of reactive mesothelial cells, overlapping with those of cancer cells Proliferation-related features Degenerative changes, such as nuclear hyperchromasia and cytoplasmic vacuolation Unexpected patterns and unusual entities.
Keywords
Effusion cytology
Pitfalls
False positive
False negative
FACTORS LEADING TO POTENTIAL DIAGNOSTIC PITFALLS
False positivity in up to 0.5% and false negativity in up to 30% of cases have been reported in effusion fluid cytology.[1] Most of these discrepant diagnoses, especially false-positive results, could be prevented if the interpreter is conversant with the following factors responsible for potential diagnostic pitfalls in this area of cytopathology [Table 1].
Pitfalls | Misintp | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Categories | Subcategories | FP | FN | Associations |
a. Surface tension-related alterations in cytomorphology | X | Frequent with sarcoma | ||
b. Improper specimen processing | i. Improper collection in fixative | X | X | |
ii. Improper storage with excessive degenerative changes | X | |||
iii Lack of Diff-Quik-stained smears | X | X | ||
iv. Lack of cell-block | X | X | ||
v. Improper orientation and organization of immunostained sections may compromise application of SCIP approach2 | X | X | ||
c. Many faces of reactive mesothelial cells | X | Frequent with some clinical situations | ||
d. Proliferation-related features | i. Proliferation spheres ii. Increased number of mitotic figures iii. Prominent nucleoli |
Potential misinterpretation of cancer subtype (such as presence of nucleoli in small cell carcinoma metastases to effusion cavities). | ||
e. Degenerative changes | i. Nuclear hyperchromasia ii. Cytoplasmic vacuolation |
X | Potential misinterpretation of cancer subtype | |
f. Presence of some unexpected patterns and unusual entities | i. Reactive lymphoid population | X | Polymorphic lymphomas such as low-grade follicular lymphoma | |
ii. Polymorphic lymphoma cells | X | In metastatic mammary and ovarian carcinoma | ||
iii. Tumor cells as single population | X | In metastatic mammary and ovarian carcinoma | ||
iv. Psammoma bodies | X | Seen in 30% peritoneal effusions, washings, and culdocentesis Non-neoplastic associations in peritoneal specimens include: papillary mesothelial hyperplasia, endosalpingiosis | ||
v. Three-dimensional benign cell groups −Benign papillary inclusions −Gland-like epithelial structures −Mullerian inclusions |
X | Potential misinterpretation of cancer subtype | ||
vi. Megakaryocytes | X | Extramedullary hematopoiesis and pleural effusions |
surface tension-related alterations in cytomorphology
improper specimen processing
Many faces of reactive mesothelial cells, overlapping with those of cancer cells
proliferation-related features
degenerative changes, such as nuclear hyperchromasia and cytoplasmic vacuolation
unexpected patterns and unusual entities.
SURFACE-TENSION-RELATED ALTERATIONS IN CYTOMORPHOLOGY
Although the interpreters may be familiar with the conventional morphology of various neoplastic cells, surface tension of the effusion fluid may lead to alteration in usual cellular morphology. • A classical example in this category would be predominance of polyhedral cells in metastatic sarcoma, in contrast to spindle cells in other cytology specimens such as fine-needle aspiration biopsy (FNAB) smears.
IMPROPER SPECIMEN PROCESSING
If staining, cell-block preparation, immunostaining, and other specimen processing steps are not organized properly to address various objectives associated with interpretation of effusion cytology, it may lead to suboptimal results. This may range from improper specimen collection or storage to failure of making smears for proper staining such as Diff-Quik staining and cell-block preparation. Additional factors such as improper orientation and organization of immunostained cell-block sections for evaluation of ‘subtractive coordinate immunoreactivity pattern’ (SCIP)[2,3] may further compromise the final interpretation.[1,2]
THE MANY FACES OF REACTIVE MESOTHELIAL CELLS
• Many of the false-positives in effusion fluid cytology are caused by the atypical features of reactive mesothelial cells associated with a variety of underlying nonneoplastic processes, including acute pancreatitis,[4] tuberculosis,[1] ovarian fibroma,[1] pulmonary infarction,[5] chemotherapy,[6] and cirrhosis (especially post-hepatitic secondary to chronic active hepatitis).[1] These clinical conditions may induce remarkable changes in mesothelial cells, resulting in morphologic appearances overlapping those with malignant cells. This may lead to the pitfall of misinterpreting these floridly reactive mesothelial cells with atypical features as cancer cells [see Figure 5c].
PROLIFERATION-RELATED FEATURES[7–27]
Changes in cell morphology secondary to nutrient-rich fluid medium, which allows continued proliferation of exfoliated cells, lead to various diagnostic pitfalls, including:
proliferation spheres
increased number of mitotic figures
prominent nucleoli.
The malignant cells may continue to proliferate even after they are exfoliated into a serous cavity fluid to give rise to ‘three dimensional globular structures’ known as ‘proliferation spheres’ [Figures 1, 3]. These proliferation spheres are three-dimensional, solid or hollow aggregates without a stromal core. They are unique to metastatic cancer cells in serous cavity fluids. In contrast, urine and cerebrospinal fluid are not conducive to proliferation of neoplastic cells; therefore, urothelial carcinoma in urine and metastatic cancer cells in cerebrospinal fluid do not form proliferation spheres.
The periphery of the proliferation spheres often shows a radial arrangement due to the rapid proliferation of their constituent cells, resulting in an increase in the size of these groups [see Figure 1]. Acinar and glandular structures may also resemble proliferation spheres at lower magnification. However, these structures are smaller and a central space can usually be seen at higher magnification by adjusting the fine focus [Figure 2].
-
Proliferation spheres are not observed in recently developed malignant effusions because of lack of time necessary for proliferation, and so they are usually observed at a later stage. They continue to grow and may reach up to 0.5 mm in diameter, which are readily visible to the naked eye either in the fluid or on the slide. These are observed in effusions secondary to many types of malignancies, especially ductal carcinoma of the breast, epithelioid mesothelioma, and poorly differentiated small cell carcinoma of the lung [Figure 3].
Proliferation spheres are not formed in effusions secondary to cancers that lack significant intercellular cohesion. Examples of these include anaplastic gastric carcinoma (linitisplastica type), non-cohesive type of adenocarcinoma of the lung, non-cohesive epithelioid mesothelioma, pleomorphic giant cell carcinoma of the pancreas, giant cell carcinoma of the lung, lobular carcinoma of the breast, adrenocortical carcinoma, and lymphomas. Irrespective of effusion duration, such effusions usually contain a high proportion of isolated cells.
Some proliferation spheres may conglomerate together, especially during specimen processing, to form groups that may impart a papillary configuration [Figure 4]. Proliferation spheres simulating papillary structures are relatively common in effusion smears from a variety of neoplasms and do not denote a papillary architecture at the primary lesion. Consequently, papillary-like structures are not uncommon in effusions associated with non-papillary adenocarcinomas of colon and pancreas.
In smears of fresh effusions, mitotic figures may be seen at the periphery of proliferation spheres. Mitotic figures are frequent if the patient is not receiving chemotherapy and the specimen has not been refrigerated. After effective chemotherapy, neoplastic cells often show apoptosis with karyorrhexis in solitary and loose groups of cells. Mitotic figures with multinucleation may also be noted in peritoneal dialysis fluids.[28]
DEGENERATIVE CHANGES[7–27]
Degenerative and other changes secondary to improper storage and handling of specimens introduce various atypical morphologic features, including nuclear hyperchromasia and cytoplasmic vacuolations. They are not uncommon in free-floating cells in a fluid medium. Degenerative hyperchromasia seen in Papanicolaou (PAP)-stained smears and other changes in PAP and Diff-Quik (DQ)-stained smears may lead to the pitfall of misinterpreting such cells in effusions as malignant cells [Figure 5].
In chronic effusions, mesothelial cells with degenerative changes show many small vacuoles and may resemble foamy macrophages. The vacuoles may join with each other and form a single large cytoplasmic vacuole displacing the nucleus to the periphery of the cell, leading to a signet-ring cell appearance resembling an adenocarcinoma cell [see Figure 5]. Similar changes may also be produced when effusion specimens are left at room temperature for a long time. These artifacts are frequent in effusions collected during the weekend (especially with warmer ambient conditions) and not processed immediately. • Due to this, reactive mesothelial cells, with degenerative intracytoplasmic vacuoles may be misinterpreted as adenocarcinoma cells with mucin vacuoles [see Figure 5]. This may be aggravated further by the presence of mesothelial cells with large degenerated nuclei.
Similarly, the neoplastic cells with degenerative cytoplasmic vacuoles are much more frequent than adenocarcinoma cells with true mucin vacuoles. Consequently, the nonmucin-producing neoplastic cells with degenerative changes may be misinterpreted as mucin-producing adenocarcinoma [Figure 6].
Degenerative intracytoplasmic vacuoles usually do not occupy the entire cytoplasm of a cell and do not show ballooning. The borders of such degenerative vacuoles are usually ill-defined [see Figure 5b,c]. In comparison, the true intracytoplasmic vacuoles with secretion usually balloon the entire cell and occupy most of the cytoplasm, and may show secretion in it (targetoid vacuole) [Figure 7a]. These vacuoles usually have well-defined borders [Figure 7b]. However, it is not always possible to distinguish reactive mesothelial cells with degenerative intracytoplasmic vacuoles from neoplastic cells with secretory vacuoles by cytomorphology alone with certainty. Ancillary tests, including histochemistry, such as a periodic acid–Schiff (PAS) stain with diastase digestion and a mucicarmine stain, may help to discriminate between these entities [Figure 8].
UNEXPECTED PATTERNS AND UNUSUAL ENTITIES
The presence of some unexpected patterns and unusual entities in serous cavity fluid specimens, including effusions and washings, may create an interpretation challenge and lead to the diagnostic pitfalls. Some of the patterns and entities are described below.
Reactive lymphoid population
Reactive lymphoid effusions with chronic inflammation showing numerous lymphoid cells [Figure 9] may be misinterpreted as one of the blue cell tumors especially in pediatric population with history of lymphoma, neuroblastoma, Ewing’s/primitive neuroectodermal tumors (PNETs), Wilms’ tumor, or desmoplastic small round cell tumor (DSRCT).[29,30]
Polymorphic lymphocytes
Polymorphic lymphocytes of low-grade lymphoproliferative neoplasms, such as some low-grade follicular lymphomas [Figure 12], may be misinterpreted as reactive chronic inflammatory cells.[31] Similar to reactive lymphocytes in effusion with chronic inflammatory cells, these polymorphic low-grade lymphoma cells resemble cells of small round cell tumors and vice versa, especially in PAP-stained preparations [see Figure 12d,e,f]. Immunophenotyping with flow cytometry and immunostaining of cell-block sections or Cytospin smears are very useful ancillaries to cytomorphology for objective interpretation in addition to cytogenetics, in-situ hybridization, and other tests as indicated.[31]
Single population of cells with predominance of tumor cells
A predominant population of scattered isolated cells of low-grade carcinoma from some primary sites, such as ovary and breast, may resemble floridly reactive mesothelial cells [Figures 10, 11e]. As a DQ stain highlights a second population more distinctly, the failure of including a DQ-stained preparation in the evaluation protocol may compromise proper interpretation in such clinical situations and lead to the pitfall of misinterpreting such specimens as negative for neoplastic cells because of a failure to detect the second population in a PAP-stained preparation alone. Further immunocytochemical evaluation with a properly tailored immunopanel (including two color vimentin (red) with BerEP4 (Brown) immunostaining32), after initial suggestion of a two-cell population in DQ-stained preparation, is helpful to demonstrate their non-mesothelial nature and confirm the second foreign population.
Psammoma bodies
Psammoma bodies are concentrically laminated calcific spherules encountered in 3.7% of effusions.[33] In pleural and pericardial effusions, they are usually associated with various papillary neoplasms such as metastatic papillary carcinoma of thyroid, bronchioloalveolar carcinoma of lung, and serous papillary cystadenocarcinoma of ovary. However, they may be associated with non-neoplastic processes such as papillary mesothelial hyperplasia, endometriosis, and endosalpingiosis in up to 30% of peritoneal effusions, washings,[34] and culde-sac aspirates, where they are a significant pitfall and may lead to a false-positive interpretation for malignancy. An experience graciously shared by Dr Naylor emphasizes this point. A case of reactive effusion with psammoma bodies in culdocentesis fluid presented at a diagnostic seminar in 1968 was misinterpreted by all four cytopathologists, including him, as adenocarcinoma.[35]
Three-dimensional reactive cell groups
Reactive papillary groups, gland-like epithelial structures,[34,36] and Müllerian inclusions,[37] especially in peritoneal washings, may be misinterpreted as malignant. Müllerian inclusions are usually seen as tubular or papillary structures. They often form a single layer of cells with some atypia and may be associated with psammoma bodies. This is an important pitfall in peritoneal specimens, especially washings. Its recognition is important to avoid a misdiagnosis of disseminated cancer.[37]
Megakaryocytes
Megakaryocytes are large cells with large, irregular, lobulated, hyperchromatic nuclei. Pleural effusions with fresh blood, as a result of bleeding from the pulmonary microvasculature, may contain megakaryocytes.[38] They may be present in effusions associated with myeloproliferative disorders or in cases with extensive replacement of bone marrow by metastatic carcinoma.[39] Their morphology is comparable with the megakaryocytes observed in Romanowsky-stained bone marrow smears. The presence of these cells in effusions may lead to the pitfall of misinterpretation as neoplastic cells, especially in PAP-stained smears.
TRUE NEGATIVE RESULTS IN EFFUSIONS CAUSED BY CANCER[7–27]
False-positive results in effusion cytology are usually misinterpretations related to the aforementioned pitfalls.[1,4-6,29] But the so-called false-negative results are usually not because of misinterpretation alone. Malignant cells may not be identified in the clinically proven malignant effusions in about 5% of cases. Such cases with negative results should not be considered as false-negatives or ‘misinterpretations.’ The causes responsible for such negative results are:
The effusion may be secondary to blockage of the lymphatics by neoplastic cells that have not exfoliated into the serous cavity. The effusion may simply show reactive mesothelial cells with or without inflammatory cells and lack any malignant cells. This is usually observed with neoplasms that spread by lymphatics.
Malignant cells may induce increased capillary permeability due to their chemical mediators, such as VEGF (vascular endothelial growth factor), leading to an accumulation of fluid with the absence of neoplastic cells.
Neoplasms such as low-grade sarcomas and spindle cell mesotheliomas usually do not exfoliate the cells into effusions.
Neoplastic cells may not exfoliate into the effusion fluid because of an organized thick fibrinous layer covering the serosa. This encapsulation is usually observed in pleural cavities with epithelioid mesothelioma.
The neoplastic cells decrease in number over time and eventually may disappear totally. The effusion may be secondary to other associated pathologies such as irradiation, obstructive or aspiration pneumonia, atelectasis, pleuritis, and infarction.
Not all effusions from patients with cancer show malignant cells. When the initial effusion smear is negative, a repeat cytologic examination is recommended for recurrent or persistent effusions if there is continued clinical suspicion of malignancy. Because the detection rate of malignancy is increased when multiple specimens are examined, these negative cases may eventually show tumor cells in recurrent effusions.[1,40,41]
References
- Diagnostic accuracy of effusion cytology. Diagn Cytopathol. 1999;20:350-357.
- [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Serous effusions: Reactive, benign and malignant In: Gray W, Kocjan G, eds. Diagnostic Cytopathology Vol Ch. 3. (3rd ed). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier; 2010.
- [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Malignant-appearing cells in pleural effusion due to pancreatitis: case report and literature review. Acta Cytol. 1981;25:412-416.
- [Google Scholar]
- Diagnostic efficacy of pleural biopsy as compared with that of pleural fluid examination. Mod Pathol. 1991;4:320-324.
- [Google Scholar]
- Cytologic detection of malignancy in pleural effusion: a review of 5,255 samples from 3,811 patients. Diagn Cytopathol. 1987;3:8-12.
- [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Recognition of malignant cells in pleural and peritoneal effusions. Acta Cytol. 1974;18:118-121.
- [Google Scholar]
- Mesothelial papilloma: a case of mistaken identity in a peritoneal effusion. Acta Cytol. 1976;20:266-268.
- [Google Scholar]
- Malignant Effusions: A Multimodal Approach to Cytologic Diagnosis New York: Igaku-Shoin; 1994.
- [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Peritoneal mesothelium and ovarian surface cells: shared characteristics. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 1984;3:361-375.
- [Google Scholar]
- Cytologic diagnosis of florid peritoneal endosalpingiosis. A case report. Acta Cytol. 1986;30:494-496.
- [Google Scholar]
- Kinetics of proliferation of cancer cells in neoplastic effusions in man. Cancer. 1965;18:1189-1213.
- [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Surface configuration of mesothelial cells in effusions. A comparative light microscopic and scanning electron microscopic study. Virchows Arch B Cell Pathol Incl Mol Pathol. 1979;30:231-243.
- [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Macrophages from malignant effusions. J Pathol. 1981;134:279-290.
- [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Diagnostic Cytology and Its Histopathologic Bases (4th ed). Philadelphia: JB Lippincott; 1992.
- [Google Scholar]
- Malignant-appearing cells in pleural effusion due to pancreatitis: case report and literature review. Acta Cytol. 1981;25:412-416.
- [Google Scholar]
- Distribution pattern of concanavalin A on carcinoma cells, histiocytes and mesothelial cells from effusions. Acta Cytol. 1987;31:99-103.
- [Google Scholar]
- Pleural peritoneal and pericardial fluids. In: Bibbo M, ed. Comprehensive Cytopathology. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 1991. p. :541-614.
- [Google Scholar]
- Benign mesothelial proliferation with collagen formation in pericardial fluid. Acta Cytol. 1979;23:428-430.
- [Google Scholar]
- The architecture of tumor cell clusters in serous effusions In: Koss LG, Coleman DV, eds. Advances in Clinical Cytology. Vol 2. New York: Masson; 1984. p. :267-290.
- [Google Scholar]
- Atlas of Serous Fluid Cytopathology: Guide to the Cells of Pleural, Pericardial, Peritoneal and Hydrocele Fluids London: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1989.
- [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Pleural effusion: a diagnostic dilemma. JAMA. 1976;236:2183-2186.
- [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Differential diagnosis of pleural effusions. Chest. 1981;79:297-301.
- [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Mesothelial healing: morphological and kinetic investigations. J Pathol. 1985;145:159-175.
- [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Cytologic features of atypical mesothelial cells in peritoneal dialysis fluid. Diagn Cytopathol. 1990;6:22-26.
- [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Cytology of fluids from pleural, peritoneal and pericardial cavities in children. A comprehensive survey. Acta Cytol. 1994;38:209-217.
- [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Desmoplastic small round cell tumour: cytological and immunocytochemical features. Cytojournal. 2005;2:6.
- [Google Scholar]
- Combined cytomorphologic and immunophenotypic analysis in the diagnostic workup of lymphomatous effusions. Acta Cytol. 2001;45:307-312.
- [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Efficiency and effectivity of using dual-color immunostaining with a combination of BerEp4 and vimentin as compared to BerEp4 alone on serous effusions. J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2020;9:S5-6.
- [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Significance of psammoma bodies in serous cavity fluid: a cytopathologic analysis. Cancer. 2004;102:87-91.
- [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Peritoneal washings in ovarian tumors. Potential sources of error in cytologic diagnosis. Acta Cytol. 1985;29:310-316.
- [Google Scholar]
- Benign papillary structures with psammoma bodies in culdocentesis fluid. Acta Cytol. 1969;13:178-180.
- [Google Scholar]
- Atypical papillary proliferation in gynecologic patients: a study of 32 pelvic washes. Diagn Cytopathol. 2005;32:76-81.
- [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Mullerian inclusions in peritoneal washings. Potential source of error in cytologic diagnosis. Acta Cytol. 1986;30:271-276.
- [Google Scholar]
- Megakaryocytes in a hemorrhagic pleural effusion caused by anticoagulant overdose. Acta Cytol. 1986;30:163-165.
- [Google Scholar]
- Megakaryocytes in pleural and peritoneal fluids: prevalence, significance, morphology, and cytohistological correlation. J Clin Pathol. 1980;33:1153-1159.
- [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- The value of multiple fluid specimens in the cytological diagnosis of malignancy. Mod Pathol. 1994;7:665-668.
- [Google Scholar]
- The malignant pleural effusion. A review of cytopathologic diagnoses of 584 specimens from 472 consecutive patients. Cancer. 1985;56:905-9.
- [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]