Patient perspectives of a diagnosis of myeloproliferative neoplasm in a case control study

Background: Myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) including the classic entities; polycythemia vera (PV), essential thrombocythemia (ET) and primary myelofibrosis are rare diseases with unknown aetiology. The MOSAICC study, is an exploratory case–control study in which information was collected through telephone questionnaires and medical records. Methods: As part of the study, 106 patients with MPN were asked about their perceived diagnosis and replies correlated with their haematologist’s diagnosis. For the first time, a patient perspective on their MPN diagnosis and classification was obtained. Logistic regression analyses were utilised to evaluate the role of variables in whether or not a patient reported their diagnosis during interview with co-adjustment for these variables. Chi square tests were used to investigate the association between MPN subtype and patient reported categorisation of MPN. Results: Overall, 77.4 % of patients reported a diagnosis of MPN. Of those, 39.6 % recognised MPN as a ‘blood condition’,23.6 % recognised MPN as a ‘cancer’ and 13.2 % acknowledged MPN as an ‘other medical condition’. There was minimal overlap between the categories. Patients with PV were more likely than those with ET to report their disease as a ‘blood condition’. ET patients were significantly more likely than PV patients not to report their condition at all.Patients from a single centre were more likely to report their diagnosis as MPN while age, educational status, and WHO re-classification had no effect. Conclusions: The discrepancy between concepts of MPN in patients could result from differing patient interest in their condition, varying information conveyed by treating hematologists, concealment due to denial or financial concerns. Explanations for the differences in patient perception of the nature of their disease, requires further, larger scale investigation.

Refining the diagnosis and EGFR status of non-small cell lung carcinoma in biopsy and cytologic material, using a panel of mucin staining, TTF-1, cytokeratin 5/6, and P63, and EGFR mutation analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The dichotomization of non-small cell carcinoma (NSCLC) subtype into squamous (SQCC) and adenocarcinoma (ADC) has become important in recent years and is increasingly required with regard to management. The aim of this study was to determine the utility of a panel of commercially available antibodies in refining the diagnosis on small biopsies and also to determine whether cytologic material is suitable for somatic EGFR genotyping in a prospectively analyzed series of patients undergoing investigation for suspected lung cancer. METHODS: Thirty-two consecutive cases of NSCLC were first tested using a panel comprising cytokeratin 5/6, P63, thyroid transcription factor-1, 34betaE12, and a D-PAS stain for mucin, to determine their value in refining diagnosis of NSCLC. After this test phase, two further pathologists independently reviewed the cases using a refined panel that excluded 34betaE12 because of its low specificity for SQCC, and refinement of diagnosis and concordance were assessed. Ten cases of ADC, including eight derived from cytologic samples, were sent for EGFR mutation analysis. RESULTS: There was refinement of diagnosis in 65% of cases of NSCLC to either SQCC or ADC in the test phase. This included 10 of 13 cases where cell pellets had been prepared from transbronchial needle aspirates. Validation by two further pathologists with varying expertise in lung pathology confirmed increased refinement and concordance of diagnosis. All samples were adequate for analysis, and they all showed a wild-type EGFR genotype. CONCLUSION: A panel comprising cytokeratin 5/6, P63, thyroid transcription factor-1, and a D-PAS stain for mucin increases diagnostic accuracy and agreement between pathologists when faced with refining a diagnosis of NSCLC to SQCC or ADC. These small samples, even cell pellets derived from transbronchial needle aspirates, seem to be adequate for EGFR mutation analysis.