Advertisement

Clinical Integration of Molecular Results on Cytology (Post-analytical Phase)

  • Perry Maxwell
  • Fernando C. Schmitt
  • Manuel Salto-Tellez
Chapter

Abstract

Since coining the term diagnostic molecular pathology more than a decade ago, we have seen the rise of diagnostic and stratified, personalised, targeted medicine utilising small cytopathology samples. Molecular technologies have advanced to the point where they can be as cost-effective for high-throughput testing as they are for single biomarker analysis. Similarly, technologies such as immunocytochemistry have seen increasing utilisation as molecular techniques. Such developments are inviting us to revisit the concept of the cytopathologist as a pure morphologist to become morpho-molecular specialists with opportunities in leading teams of clinicians through a maze of developing therapeutic options. Scientists and laboratory personnel too have faced challenges and we have seen career and skill development for these groups as well. We review here our experience and suggest how all staff can grasp the challenge and opportunity provided by genomic medicine, through recognising the properties of the morpho-molecular integration and highlighting how structured training can help to integrate these disciplines to address current clinical needs.

Keywords

Immunocytochemistry Next-generation sequencing Personalised medicine Clinical integration Training Reporting 

References

  1. 1.
    Salto-Tellez M, Koay ES. Molecular diagnostic cytopathology: definitions, scope and clinical utility. Cytopathology. 2004;15:252–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Maxwell P, Salto Tellez M. Validation of immunocytochemistry as a morphomolecular technique. Cancer Cytopathol. 2016;124:540–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berg KD, Glaser CL, Thompson RE, Hamilton SR, Griffin CA, Eshleman JR. Detection of microsatellite instability by fluorescence multiplex polymerase chain reaction. J Mol Diagn. 2000;2:20–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jennings LJ, Arcila ME, Corless C, Kamel-Reid S, Lubin IM, Pfeifer J, Temple-Smolken RL, Voelkerding KV, Nikiforova MN. Guidelines for validation of next-generation-sequencing-based oncology panels. J Mol Diagn. 2017;19:341–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Flynn C, James J, Maxwell P, McQuaid S, Ervine A, Catherwood M, Loughrey MB, McGibben D, Somerville J, McManus DT, Gray M, Herron B, Salto Tellez M. Integrating molecular diagnostics into histopathology training: the Belfast model. J Clin Pathol. 2014;67:632–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mattocks CJ, Morris MA, Mathijs G, Swinnen E, Corveleyn A, Dequeker E, et al. A standardized framework for the validation and verification of clinical molecular genetic tests. Eur J Hum Genet. 2010;18:1276–88.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Perry Maxwell
    • 1
  • Fernando C. Schmitt
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • Manuel Salto-Tellez
    • 1
  1. 1.Northern Ireland Molecular Pathology LaboratoryQueen’s University BelfastBelfastUK
  2. 2.Department of PathologyMedical Faculty of Porto UniversityPortoPortugal
  3. 3.I3S, Instituto de Investigação e Inovaçāo em Saúde, Universidade do PortoPortoPortugal
  4. 4.IPATIMUP, Institute of Molecular Pathology and Immunology of Porto UniversityPortoPortugal

Personalised recommendations