Utility of liquid-based cytology in the evaluation of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration: Comparison with the conventional smears

Jeong Won Kim, Dong Wan Seo, Sung-Hoon Moon, Gyungyub Gong
{"title":"Utility of liquid-based cytology in the evaluation of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration: Comparison with the conventional smears","authors":"Jeong Won Kim,&nbsp;Dong Wan Seo,&nbsp;Sung-Hoon Moon,&nbsp;Gyungyub Gong","doi":"10.1111/j.1755-9294.2009.01068.x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p> <b>Background and aim:</b> Recently, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) has been introduced in the diagnosis of pancreatic lesions, adjacent lymph nodes, and organs. To investigate the usefulness of liquid-based cytology (LBC) in EUS-FNA, we compare the efficacy of the conventional smear (CS) and LBC in EUS-FNA specimens. <b>Methods:</b> Forty-three paired LBC and CS slides were obtained using a split sample protocol. The specimen adequacy and diagnostic values were compared. <b>Results:</b> The adequate cases for diagnosis were 36 (83.7%) in CS and 22 (51.2%) in LBC. Inadequate samples were mostly obtained from lymph nodes: 6 cases in CS and 17 in LBC. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of CS and LBC were as follows: 90.5%, 95.5%, and 93.0% in CS, respectively, and 57.1%, 100%, and 79.1% in LBC. The false-negative and false-positive rates were 4.7% and 2.3% in CS, respectively, and 20.9% and 0% in LBC. The overall agreement of CS and LBC for the diagnosis of malignancy was high (κ= 0.616). <b>Conclusions:</b> CS is a more effective and adequate preparation method for use in EUS-FNA-based diagnosis. Considering the split sample protocol of this study, LBC is a comparable diagnostic tool to CS in the evaluation of EUS-FNA specimens.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":92990,"journal":{"name":"Basic and applied pathology","volume":"3 2","pages":"57-62"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-06-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/j.1755-9294.2009.01068.x","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Basic and applied pathology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1755-9294.2009.01068.x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Background and aim: Recently, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) has been introduced in the diagnosis of pancreatic lesions, adjacent lymph nodes, and organs. To investigate the usefulness of liquid-based cytology (LBC) in EUS-FNA, we compare the efficacy of the conventional smear (CS) and LBC in EUS-FNA specimens. Methods: Forty-three paired LBC and CS slides were obtained using a split sample protocol. The specimen adequacy and diagnostic values were compared. Results: The adequate cases for diagnosis were 36 (83.7%) in CS and 22 (51.2%) in LBC. Inadequate samples were mostly obtained from lymph nodes: 6 cases in CS and 17 in LBC. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of CS and LBC were as follows: 90.5%, 95.5%, and 93.0% in CS, respectively, and 57.1%, 100%, and 79.1% in LBC. The false-negative and false-positive rates were 4.7% and 2.3% in CS, respectively, and 20.9% and 0% in LBC. The overall agreement of CS and LBC for the diagnosis of malignancy was high (κ= 0.616). Conclusions: CS is a more effective and adequate preparation method for use in EUS-FNA-based diagnosis. Considering the split sample protocol of this study, LBC is a comparable diagnostic tool to CS in the evaluation of EUS-FNA specimens.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
液体细胞学在内镜超声引导下细针穿刺评估中的应用:与常规涂片的比较
背景与目的:近年来,超声内镜(EUS)引导下的细针穿刺(FNA)被引入胰腺病变、邻近淋巴结和器官的诊断中。为了探讨液体细胞学(LBC)在EUS-FNA中的有效性,我们比较了传统涂片(CS)和LBC在EUS-FNA标本中的效果。方法:采用分离样本法,获得43例LBC和CS配对玻片。比较标本充分性和诊断价值。结果:CS为36例(83.7%),LBC为22例(51.2%)。样本不足主要来自淋巴结:CS 6例,LBC 17例。CS和LBC的敏感性、特异性和准确性分别为90.5%、95.5%和93.0%,LBC的敏感性、特异性和准确性分别为57.1%、100%和79.1%。CS的假阴性和假阳性率分别为4.7%和2.3%,LBC的假阴性和假阳性率分别为20.9%和0%。CS与LBC对恶性肿瘤诊断的总体一致性较高(κ= 0.616)。结论:CS是eus - fna诊断中更有效、更充分的制备方法。考虑到本研究的分离样本方案,LBC在评估EUS-FNA标本时是一种与CS相当的诊断工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Primary adrenal Epstein–Barr virus-positive diffuse large B cell lymphoma of the elderly, mimicking pseudocyst Anti-glomerular basement membrane antibody-mediated glomerulonephritis combined with non-fulminant acute viral hepatitis A Usefulness of anti-phosphohistone H3 immunoreactivity to determine mitotic rate in gastrointestinal stromal tumors Intestinal morphology assessments of rats fed phytic acid extract from sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas) and IP6 Basic and Applied Pathology
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1