Objective: To distinguish between the intestinal and diffuse types of gastric adenocarcinoma on brush cytology (BC). Study Design: Brushing smears and biopsy samples obtained at endoscopic examination from 32 patients with clinically or radiologically suspected gastric malignancy were included in the study. Cytologic smears were examined by 2 cytopathologists, using predetermined criteria to arrive at a consensus diagnosis. A meticulous attempt was made to distinguish between the 2 types of gastric adenocarcinoma. Cytologic diagnoses were correlated with the histologic diagnoses. Results: Twenty-one cases (65.6%) were concordant between BC and endoscopic biopsy (EB) with respect to sub-typing. Two (6.2%) cases reported as ‘poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma’ on BC turned out to be ‘diffuse type’. Three cases (9.4%) reported as ‘diffuse type’ on BC were ‘intestinal type’ on EB. Two of these discordant cases had intestinal metaplasia on BC, which should have suggested ‘intestinal type’ of adenocarcinoma on BC. Three cases (9.4%) were false positive. On review, 2 of these false-positive cases showed cytologically convincing malignant cells, the third case was misinterpreted as diffuse type of adenocarcinoma due to reactive glandular cells entangled in the mucoid background. Three (9.4%) EB were non-representative with only superficial mucosa; BC diagnosis in these 3 cases was intestinal type of adenocarcinoma. Conclusion: Although, overlapping cytomorphology between the intestinal and diffuse types of gastric adenocarcinoma can cause diagnostic problem; with a meticulous cytomorphologic approach, it is possible to accurately distinguish between the 2 types in a considerable number of cases.

Keywords:
Adenocarcinoma, gastric type, Adenocarcinoma, diffuse type, Brush cytology, Endoscopic biopsy, Intestinal metaplasia
1.
Takeda M, Gomi K, Lewis PL, Tamura K, Ohoki S, Fujimoto Y, Kikyo S: Two histologic types of early gastric carcinoma and their cytologic presentation. Acta Cytol 1981;25:229–236.
2.
Young JA, Hughes HE, Hole DJ: Morphological characteristics and distribution patterns of epithelial cells in the cytological diagnosis of gastric cancer. J Clin Pathol 1982;35:585–590.
3.
Kochar R, Bhasin DK, Rajwanshi A, Gupta SK, Malik AK, Mehta SK: Crush preparations of gastroesophageal biopsy specimens in the diagnosis of malignancies. Acta Cytol 1990;34:214–216.
4.
Malhotra V, Puri R, Chinna RS, Chawla LS, Sabharwal BD: Endoscopic techniques in the diagnosis of upper gastrointestinal tract malignancies: a comparison. Acta Cytol 1996;40:929–932.
5.
Zargar SA, Khuroo MS, Jan GM, Mahajan R, Shah P: Prospective comparison of the value of brushings before and after biopsy in the endoscopic diagnosis of gastroesophageal malignancy. Acta Cytol 1991;35:549–552.
6.
Qizilbash AH, Castelli M, Kowalski MA, Churly A: Endoscopic brush cytology and biopsy in the diagnosis of cancer of the upper gastrointestinal tract. Acta Cytol 1980;24:313–318.
7.
Cook IJ, de Clare DJ, Haneman B, Hunt DR, Talley NA, Miller D: The role of brushing cytology in the diagnosis of gastric malignancy. Acta Cytol 1988;32:461–464.
8.
Liu C, Crawford JM: The gastrointestinal tract; in Kumar V, Abbas AK (eds): Pathologic Basis of Disease: Diseases of Organ Systems, ed 7. Philadelphia, Elsevier Saunders, 2004, pp 797–876.
9.
Koss GL, Melamed MR: Koss’ Diagnostic Cytology and its Histopathologic Bases: The Gastrointestinal Tract, ed 5. Philadelphia, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2006, vol 1, pp 847–918.
10.
Campbell F, Lauwers GY, Williams GT: Tumors of the esophagus and stomach; in Fletcher CDM: Diagnostic Histopathology of Tumors. Philadelphia, Churchill Livingstone, 2007, pp 327–378.
© 2011 S. Karger AG, Basel
2011
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.