Home | About CytoJournalEditorial Board | Archived articles | Search CytoJ Articles | Subscribe | Peer review policies | CytoJournal Quiz Cases
  Reviewer corner | Author corner | OA Steward’s corner | CF member’s corner | Join as CF member | Manuscript submission | Open Access (OA) Advocacy
Home
CytoJournal All 'FULL TEXT' in HTML are FREE under "open access" charter of CytoJournal.
To login for downloading any PDF OR to request TOC (Table of Content) by e-mail, please click here
Home Email this page Print this page Small font size Default font size Increase font size Cytopathology Foundation
Navigate here
  Search
 
 » Next article
 » Previous article 
 » Browse articles
  
Resource links
 »  Similar in PUBMED
 »  Search Pubmed for
 »  Search in Google Scholar for
 »  Article in PDF (298 KB)
 »  Citation Manager
 »  Access Statistics
 »  Reader Comments
 »  Email Alert *
 »  Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
 »  Abstract
 »  Background
 »  Materials and me...
 »  Results
 »  Discussion
 »  Competing interests
 »  Authors' contrib...
 »  References
 »  Article Figures
 »  Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed8066    
    Printed86    
    Emailed1    
    PDF Downloaded405    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 4    

Recommend this journal

 


 
RESEARCH
CytoJournal 2008,  5:9

Myoepithelial Cells : Any role in aspiration cytology smears of breast tumors?


1 Department of Pathology, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India
2 Department of Cytology, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India
3 Department of Histopathology, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India

Date of Submission07-Feb-2008
Date of Acceptance21-Apr-2008
Date of Web Publication21-Apr-2008

Correspondence Address:
Pranab Dey
Department of Cytology, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.1186/1742-6413-5-9

Rights and Permissions

 » Abstract 

Aims and Objective: To study the role of myoepithelial (ME) cells in distinguishing benign, proliferative breast diseases (PBD) and frank malignant breast lesions.
Materials and methods: In this study, histology proven 71 cases of fine needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) of palpable breast lesions were selected. There were 30 invasive carcinomas (24 infiltrating duct carcinoma and 6 infiltrating lobular carcinoma), 25 cases of benign lesion (21 fibroadenomas and 4 fibrocystic lesions) and 11 proliferative breast diseases (other than carcinoma in situ) and five cases of carcinoma in situ. The number of ME cells were estimated in respect to 1000 ductal cells. In every case at least 20 high power fields (× 40) were studied. Quantitative estimation of ME cell was correlated with the final diagnosis. Corresponding histopathology cases were also evaluated for diagnostic confirmation along with the pattern of distribution of ME cells. The ME cells were also quantitated on histopathology sections on smooth muscle actin (SMA) immunostained sections.
Results: The mean number of ME cells per 1000 ductal cells on cytology smears was 5.1 ± 5.5, 30.8 ± 25, 28.3 ± 20.2, and 38.4 ± 38.8 in malignant, carcinoma in situ, PBD and benign breast lesions respectively. The non parametric Mann Whitney test showed significant difference in number of the ME cells between benign and malignant groups (p < .000), PBD and malignant groups (p < .000) and carcinoma in situ and malignant group (p < .001). However, it was insignificant between benign and PBD group, and PBD and carcinoma in situ (p > .01). In SMA stained histopathology sections, ME cell in benign, PBD, carcinoma in situ and malignant cases were 741.12 ± 248, 238 ± 172, 121.6 ± 115 and 15.6 ± 25.1 respectively. Statistical analysis showed significantly different number of ME cell between benign versus PBD group, carcinoma in situ and malignant group. It was also significant between PBD versus malignant, and carcinoma in situ versus malignant (p < .001, Mann Whitney test). However number of ME cell was not significant between PBD versus carcinoma in situ.
Conclusion: The number of ME cell in breast lesions may be helpful in distinguishing PBD versus invasive malignant tumors on FNAC smears. However it is not helpful to distinguish benign lesions versus PBD.



How to cite this article:
Pattari SK, Dey P, Gupta SK, Joshi K. Myoepithelial Cells : Any role in aspiration cytology smears of breast tumors?. CytoJournal 2008;5:9

How to cite this URL:
Pattari SK, Dey P, Gupta SK, Joshi K. Myoepithelial Cells : Any role in aspiration cytology smears of breast tumors?. CytoJournal [serial online] 2008 [cited 2017 Mar 28];5:9. Available from: http://www.cytojournal.com/text.asp?2008/5/1/9/41197



 » Background Top


Fine needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) is an important tool for rapid and accurate diagnosis of various benign and malignant breast lesions with high sensitivity and specificity [1-4]. However in certain occasion it is difficult to provide a definitive diagnosis in breast neoplasm with the help of FNAC. This is particularly true in proliferative breast diseases (PBD), and certain types of carcinomas such as tubular carcinoma and lobular carcinomas [5-7]. The presence of myoepithelial cell (ME) has long been recognized as a prominent feature of benign breast diseases [8]. However its presence in proliferative breast diseases has rarely been explored particularly in FNAC smears [8-11]. In this present paper we studied the role of quantitation of ME cells in distinguishing benign, PBD and frank malignant breast lesions.


 » Materials and methods Top


In this study, histology proven 71 cases of FNAC of palpable breast lesions were selected. There were 30 invasive malignant tumors (24 cases of infiltrating duct carcinoma and 6 cases of infiltrating lobular carcinoma), 25 cases of benign lesion (21 fibroadenomas and 4 fibrocystic lesions) and 11 proliferative breast diseases and five cases of carcinoma in situ (CIS). Both malignant and benign breast lesions were selected randomly. FNAC smears of all the histopathology proven PBD cases diagnosed in last four years were selected for this study. The PBD cases were classified as described by Page DL et al [6]. The carcinoma in situ cases were classified as described by Holland R et al [12]. In all the cases both May Grunwald Giemsa and haematoxylin and eosin stained smears were studied. The ME cells in FNAC smears were identified as oval to bipolar cells with scanty cytoplasm and elongated densely stained nuclei. The number of ME cells were estimated in respect to 1000 ductal cells. In every case at least 20 high power fields (× 40) were studied. Quantitative estimation of ME cell was correlated with the final diagnosis. Corresponding histopathology cases were also evaluated for diagnostic confirmation along with the pattern of distribution and counting of ME cells on smooth muscle actin (SMA) immunostained sections (DAKO muscle actin, HHF 35).


 » Results Top


The distribution of cases was shown in [Table 1]. In group A, there were 25 benign breast lesions comprised of 21 cases of fibroadenoma (FA) and four cases of fibrocystic diseases. In group B, there were 11 cases of PBD comprised of mild hyperplasia (5), moderate hyperplasia (4), and atypical ductal hyperplasia (2). In group C there were five cases of carcinoma in situ (5), out of which three were three high grade and one each intermediate grade and low grade tumor. In group D, there were 30 malignant tumors comprised of 24 cases of infiltrating duct carcinoma and 6 cases of infiltrating lobular carcinoma.

The ME cells were distributed as scattered singly in the background in between the epithelial cell clusters and within the epithelial cell clusters [Figure 1],[Figure 2],[Figure 3]. The mean number of ME cells per 1000 ductal cells on cytology smears was 5.1 ± 5.5, 30.8 ± 25, 28.3 ± 20.2, and 38.4 ± 38.8 in malignant, carcinoma in situ, PBD and benign breast lesions respectively [Table 2]. The non parametric Mann Whitney test showed significant difference in number of the ME cells between benign and malignant groups (p < .000), PBD and malignant groups (p < .000) and carcinoma in situ and malignant group (p < .001). However, the number of the ME cells was insignificant between benign and PBD group, and PBD and carcinoma in situ (p > .01).

The SMA staining gave consistent staining of ME cells, which were distributed as a continuous circumferential layer around the ducts and acini of normal breast tissue. The uniformly circumferential staining pattern was maintained in FA, which however became compressed in ducts with marked invagination due to stromal connective tissue overgrowth [Figure 4]. In PBD, the circumferential pattern of staining was mostly maintained. The uniformity of distribution and number of stained cells varied depending upon the histological spectrum of the lesion. In mild or moderate PBD, the staining was uniformly circumferential [Figure 5]. In carcinoma in situ, the affected ducts and acini showed interrupted pattern of staining with marked thinning. In IDC, there was almost complete absence of SMA stained cells around the tumor cells. In smooth muscle actin stained histopathology sections, ME cell in benign, PBD, carcinoma in situ and malignant cases were 741.12 ± 248, 238 ± 172, 121.6 ± 115 and 15.6 ± 25.1 respectively [Table 3]. Statistical analysis showed significantly different number of ME cell between benign versus PBD group, carcinoma in situ and malignant group (Mann Whitney test). It was also significant between PBD versus malignant, and carcinoma in situ versus malignant (p < .001, Mann Whitney test). However number of ME cell was not significantly different between PBD versus carcinoma in situ.


 » Discussion Top


Ductal system of breast is composed of epithelial cells, ME cells and intermediate or basal clear cells. In FNAC smears, ME cells are identified as oval to elongated bipolar cells with stripped of cytoplasm. In this present study, the number of ME cells in FNAC smears was significantly decreased between benign and malignant lesions as well as between PBD and malignant lesions, but the difference was not significant between benign and PBD. Yu et al [8] also quantified the number of ME cells per 40 high power field and showed that single ME cell could be seen in both benign and malignant lesions. They noted that paired ME cells was a feature of benign lesions only and this was not present in malignant lesions. In the present study, pairing of ME cell was not a significant observation even in benign lesion.

Masood S et al [13] demonstrated significant difference of number of ME cell in benign versus malignant tumors. Unlike this study, we compared the number of ME cell between PBD with benign and malignant lesions.

Bofin AM et al [10] compared the cytologic features of benign PBD, DCIS and invasive carcinoma on FNAC smears. They noted that nuclear morphology, myoepithelial cells, signs of invasion and degree of cellular differentiation are the most important discriminating factors to distinguish between different groups of lesions. Similar to the present study they also noted that ME cells are virtually absent or markedly reduced in invasive carcinoma compared to DCIS lesions. Bofin AM et al only labeled the presence or absence of ME cells. However we tried to quantify the number of such cells on FNAC smears [10].

The number of ME cell was helpful in distinguishing PBD and malignant lesions but not between PBD and benign lesion. In histopathology sections stained by SMA, the number of ME cell was significantly different between benign and PBD, benign and malignant; as well as between PBD and malignant lesions. Thus ME cell differentiation is present in benign and proliferative disorders. However, this differentiation is lost in carcinoma [14]. In histopathology, a statistically significant difference in ME cell number was noted between benign and PBD, However, in cytology this difference was not statistically significant. This may be because of the limitation of proper sampling from the representative area in FNAC smears. It was easier to select out the representative areas for counting, whereas this was not possible in FNAC smears.

Confirmation of ME cells on routine cytology or histology can be done with the help of immunostaining. We performed SMA immunostaining. However these cells can also be identified by S-100[15], calponin [16], h-caldesmin [16,17], smooth muscle heavy chain (SMMHC) antibodies [16,17] and CD10 [18]. Foschini MP et al [16] showed that SMMHC is more specific for ME cells in breast.

Atypical ductal hyperplasia is a pre-malignant lesion and carcinoma in situ is considered as pre-invasive malignant lesion [19]. It is of great clinical importance to identify accurately these lesions on FNAC. The number of ME cells may be helpful in distinguishing between PBD versus DCIS and invasive carcinoma on FNAC smears. However, in routine reporting, it is not possible to quantitate the number of ME cells and probably a subjective assessment could be done along with other cytology features.


 » Competing interests Top


The author(s) declares that they have no competing interests.


 » Authors' contributions Top


SP collected data, analyzed it and partially drafted the manuscript. PD designed, analyzed and did final drafting of the manuscript. SKG was involved in conception and designing of the study, and interpretation of data. KJ was involved in data retrieval and analysis.

All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

 
 » References Top

1.Silverman JF, Lannin DR, O'Brien K, Norris HT: The triage role of fine needle aspiration biopsy of palpable breast masses: Diagnostic accuracy and cost effectiveness. Acta Cytol 1987, 31: 731-736.   Back to cited text no. 1    
2.Shabot MM, Goldberg IM, Schick P, Nieberg R, Pilch TH: Aspiration cytology is superior to tru-cut needle biopsy in establishing the diagnosis of clinically suspicious breast masses. Ann Surg 1982, 196: 122-126.   Back to cited text no. 2    
3.Dundas SAC, Sanderson PR, Matta H, Shorthouse AJ: Fine needle aspiration of palpable breast lesions: Results obtained with centrifuge preparation of aspirates. Acta Ctol 1988, 32: 202-206.   Back to cited text no. 3    
4.Lee KR, Foster RS, Papillo JL: Fine needle aspiration of the breast: Importance of the aspirator. Acta Cytol 1987, 31: 281-284.   Back to cited text no. 4    
5.Bonderson L, Lindholm K: Aspiration cytology of tubular breast carcinoma. Acta Cytol 1990, 34: 15-20.   Back to cited text no. 5    
6.Page DL, Rogers LW: Combined histologic and cytologic criteria for the diagnosis of mammary atypical ductal hyperplasia. Hum Pathol 1992, 23: 1095-1097.   Back to cited text no. 6    
7.Joshi A, Kumar N, Verma K: Diagnostic challenge of lobular carcinoma on aspiration cytology. Diag Cytopathol 1998, 18: 179-83.   Back to cited text no. 7    
8.Yu GH, Sethi S, Cajulis RS, Gokaslan ST, Frias-Hidvegi D: Benign pairs: A useful discriminating feature in fine needle aspiration of the breast. Acta Cytol 1997, 41: 721-726.   Back to cited text no. 8    
9.Bibbo M, Scheiber M, Cajulis R, Keebler CM, Wied GL, Dowlatshahi K: Stereotaxic fine needle aspiration cytology of clinically occult malignant and premalignant breast lesions. Acta Cytol 1988, 32: 193-201.   Back to cited text no. 9    
10.Bofin AM, Lydersen S, Hagmar BM: Cytological criteria for the diagnosis of intraductal hyperplasia, ductal carcinoma in situ, and invasive carcinoma of the breast. Diagn Cytopathol 2004, 31 (4) : 207-15.   Back to cited text no. 10    
11.Frost AR, Tabbara SO, Poprocky LA, Weiss H, Sidawy MK: Cytologic features of proliferative breast disease: A study designed to minimize sampling error. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathology) 2000, 90: 33-40.   Back to cited text no. 11    
12.Holland R, Peterse JL, Millis RR, Eusebi V, Faverly D, van de Vijver MJ, Zafrani B: Ductal carcinoma in situ: a proposal for a new classification. Semin Diagn Pathol 1994, 11 (3) : 167-80.   Back to cited text no. 12    
13.Masood S, Lu L, Assaf-Munasifi M, McCaulley K: Application of immunostaining for muscle specific actin in detection of myoepithelial cells in breast fine needle aspirates. Diagn Cytopathol 1995, 13: 71-74.   Back to cited text no. 13    
14.Ahmed A: Myoepithelium in human breast carcinoma. J Pathol 1994, 113: 129-135.   Back to cited text no. 14    
15.Hijazi YM, Lessard JL, Weiss MA: Use of anti-actin and S100 protein antibodies in differentiating benign and malignant sclerosing breast lesions. Surg Pathol 1989, 2: 125-35.   Back to cited text no. 15    
16.Foschini MP, Scarpellini F, Gown AM: Differential expression of myoepithelial markers in salivary, sweat and mammary glands. Int J Surg Pathol 2000, 8: 29-37.   Back to cited text no. 16    
17.Wang NP, Wan BC, Skelly M, Frid MG, Glukhova MA, Koteliansky VE, Gown AM: Antibodies to novel myoepithelium-associated proteins distinguish benign lesions and in situ carcinoma from invasive carcinoma of the breast. Appl Immunohistochem 1997, 5: 141-151.   Back to cited text no. 17    
18.Kalof AN, Tam D, Beatty B, Cooper K: Immunostaining patterns of myoepithelial cells in breast lesions: a comparison of CD10 and smooth muscle myosin heavy chain. J Clin Pathol 2004, 57 (6) : 625-629.   Back to cited text no. 18    
19.Arpino G, Laucirica R, Elledge RM: Premalignant and in situ breast disease: biology and clinical implications. Ann Intern Med 2005, 143 (6) : 446-57.  Back to cited text no. 19    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4], [Figure 5]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3]

This article has been cited by
1 Diagnostic role of p63 immunostaining in fine needle aspiration cytology of different breast lesions
Aiad, H.A.S., Abd El-Halim Kandil, M., Abd El-Wahed, M.M., Abdou, A.G., Hemida, A.S.
Acta Cytologica. 2011; 55(2): 149-157
[Pubmed]
2 The value of systematic pattern analysis in FNAC of breast lesions: 225 cases with cytohistological correlation
Muddegowda, P.H., Lingegowda, J.B., Kurpad, R., Konapur, P.G., Shivarudrappa, A.S., Subramaniam, P.M.
Journal of Cytology. 2011; 28(1): 13-19
[Pubmed]
3 Role of myoepithelial cells in breast tumor progression
Pandey, P.R., Saidou, J., Watabe, K.
Frontiers in Bioscience. 2010; 15(1): 226-236
[Pubmed]
4 CytoJournal′s move to the new platform: More on financial model to the support open-access charter in cytopathology, publication quality indicators, and other issues
Shidham, V., Pitman, M., Demay, R., Atkinson, B.
CytoJournal. 2008; 5(art 15)
[Pubmed]



 

Top
Previous article Next article

    

  Site Map | Copyright and Disclaimer
© 2007 - CytoJournal | A journal by Cytopathology Foundation Inc with Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
New version online since 1st July '08
Open Access