Squash Cytology versus Frozen Section for Intraoperative Diagnosis of Lesions of Central Nervous System: A Cross-sectional Study

M. Vaidya, A. Shenoy, Shruti Ganvir, N. Goel
{"title":"Squash Cytology versus Frozen Section for Intraoperative Diagnosis of Lesions of Central Nervous System: A Cross-sectional Study","authors":"M. Vaidya, A. Shenoy, Shruti Ganvir, N. Goel","doi":"10.7860/njlm/2023/56215.2746","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Intraoperative assessment of neurosurgical specimens using squash cytology and frozen sections is helpful to plan extent of surgery and determine adequacy of representative tissue. Combination of these techniques has been shown to increase diagnostic accuracy and rate of concordance with final diagnosis. Aim: To assess usefulness of squash preparation and cryostat sections in making intraoperative diagnosis and to compare accuracy of squash cytology and frozen sections with respect to the final histopathological diagnosis. Materials and Methods: In this cross-sectional study conducted at a tertiary care hospital in Maharashtra, India, 110 neurosurgical specimens received for intraoperative consultation were assessed over the period of two years (January 2016- December 2017). The squash smears and frozen section diagnoses were compared with the final histopathological diagnosis and their diagnostic accuracy was determined. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value were calculated using appropriate statistical method. Results: Predominant age group in this study was 41-50 years (n=31, 28.1%) with male to female ratio of 2.23:1. Gliomas were most frequently encountered tumours (n=48) with Glioblastoma forming the commonest subgroup (n=19). The diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of squash cytology were 90.72%, 93.50% and 80.01%, respectively. The diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of frozen section were 95.87%, 97.40% and 90.01%, respectively. Conclusion: The diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity and specificity were better for frozen section than squash cytology. A more accurate intraoperative diagnosis was achieved by combining the methods.","PeriodicalId":31115,"journal":{"name":"National Journal of Laboratory Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"National Journal of Laboratory Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7860/njlm/2023/56215.2746","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Intraoperative assessment of neurosurgical specimens using squash cytology and frozen sections is helpful to plan extent of surgery and determine adequacy of representative tissue. Combination of these techniques has been shown to increase diagnostic accuracy and rate of concordance with final diagnosis. Aim: To assess usefulness of squash preparation and cryostat sections in making intraoperative diagnosis and to compare accuracy of squash cytology and frozen sections with respect to the final histopathological diagnosis. Materials and Methods: In this cross-sectional study conducted at a tertiary care hospital in Maharashtra, India, 110 neurosurgical specimens received for intraoperative consultation were assessed over the period of two years (January 2016- December 2017). The squash smears and frozen section diagnoses were compared with the final histopathological diagnosis and their diagnostic accuracy was determined. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value were calculated using appropriate statistical method. Results: Predominant age group in this study was 41-50 years (n=31, 28.1%) with male to female ratio of 2.23:1. Gliomas were most frequently encountered tumours (n=48) with Glioblastoma forming the commonest subgroup (n=19). The diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of squash cytology were 90.72%, 93.50% and 80.01%, respectively. The diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of frozen section were 95.87%, 97.40% and 90.01%, respectively. Conclusion: The diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity and specificity were better for frozen section than squash cytology. A more accurate intraoperative diagnosis was achieved by combining the methods.
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
挤压细胞学与冷冻切片术中诊断中枢神经系统病变的横断面研究
术中使用挤压细胞学和冷冻切片对神经外科标本进行评估有助于计划手术范围和确定代表性组织的充分性。这些技术的结合已被证明可以提高诊断的准确性和最终诊断的符合率。目的:评价挤压准备和冷冻切片对术中诊断的价值,比较挤压细胞学和冷冻切片对最终组织病理学诊断的准确性。材料与方法:本横断面研究在印度马哈拉施特拉邦的一家三级医院进行,对两年内(2016年1月至2017年12月)术中会诊收到的110例神经外科标本进行评估。将南瓜片和冷冻切片诊断与最终的组织病理学诊断进行比较,并确定其诊断的准确性。采用适当的统计学方法计算敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值和阴性预测值。结果:本组以41 ~ 50岁年龄组为主(n=31,占28.1%),男女比例为2.23:1。胶质瘤是最常见的肿瘤(n=48),胶质母细胞瘤是最常见的亚组(n=19)。挤压细胞学诊断的准确率为90.72%,灵敏度为93.50%,特异性为80.01%。冷冻切片的诊断准确率为95.87%,敏感性为97.40%,特异性为90.01%。结论:冷冻切片诊断的准确性、敏感性和特异性均优于挤压细胞学。结合上述方法,术中诊断更为准确。
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
71
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Seroprevalence of Rubella Virus Infection in Susceptible Women of Childbearing Age Group Seeking Preconceptional Counselling and Infertility Treatment- A Cross-sectional Study from Eastern India Significance of Immunohistochemistry Testing in the Diagnosis and Subtyping of Lung Carcinomas- A Retrospective Study from a Tertiary Care Centre in Southern Rajasthan Squash Cytology versus Frozen Section for Intraoperative Diagnosis of Lesions of Central Nervous System: A Cross-sectional Study Can Rapid Antigen Tests Lessen the Burden on Testing Laboratories? An Evaluation of the Testing Methods during the COVID-19 Pandemic Spectrum of Enteric Parasitic Infections in Immunocompromised and Immunocompetent Patients in a Tertiary Care Hospital, New Delhi- A Retrospective Study
×
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