Shorr与改良的超快速巴氏法术中诊断晚期癌症腹膜冲洗细胞学:II期研究。

IF 3.2 4区 医学 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY Journal of Gastric Cancer Pub Date : 2023-10-01 DOI:10.5230/jgc.2023.23.e34
So Hyun Kang, Hee Young Na, Younghwa Choi, Eunju Lee, Mira Yoo, Duyeong Hwang, Sa-Hong Min, Young Suk Park, Sang-Hoon Ahn, Yun-Suhk Suh, Do Joong Park, Hye Seung Lee, Hyung-Ho Kim
{"title":"Shorr与改良的超快速巴氏法术中诊断晚期癌症腹膜冲洗细胞学:II期研究。","authors":"So Hyun Kang, Hee Young Na, Younghwa Choi, Eunju Lee, Mira Yoo, Duyeong Hwang, Sa-Hong Min, Young Suk Park, Sang-Hoon Ahn, Yun-Suhk Suh, Do Joong Park, Hye Seung Lee, Hyung-Ho Kim","doi":"10.5230/jgc.2023.23.e34","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>According to the American Joint Committee on Cancer cancer staging system, positive peritoneal washing cytology (PWC) indicates stage IV gastric cancer. However, rapid intraoperative diagnosis of PWC has no established reliable method. This study evaluated and compared the diagnostic accuracy of the Shorr and the modified ultrafast Papanicolaou (MUFP) methods for intraoperative PWC.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This study included patients with gastric cancer who were clinically diagnosed with stage cT3 or higher. The Shorr and MUFP methods were performed on all PWC specimens, and the results were compared with those of conventional Papanicolaou (PAP) staining with carcinoembryonic antigen immunohistochemistry. Sensitivity, specificity, and partial likelihood tests were used to compare the 2 methods.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Forty patients underwent intraoperative PWC between November 2019 and August 2021. The average time between specimen reception and slide preparation using Shorr and MUFP methods was 44.4±4.5 minutes, and the average time between specimen reception and pathologic diagnosis was 53.9±8.9 minutes. Eight patients (20.0%) had positive cytology in PAP staining. The Shorr method had a sensitivity of 75.0% and specificity of 93.8%; the MUFP method had 62.5% sensitivity and 100.0% specificity. The area under the curve was 0.844 for Shorr and 0.813 for MUFP. In comparing the C-indices of each method with overall survival, no difference was found among the Shorr, MUFP, and conventional PAP methods.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The Shorr and MUFP methods are acceptable for the intraoperative diagnosis of PWC in advanced gastric cancer.</p>","PeriodicalId":56072,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Gastric Cancer","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10630561/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Shorr Versus Modified Ultrafast Papanicolaou Method for Intraoperative Diagnosis of Peritoneal Washing Cytology in Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Phase II Study.\",\"authors\":\"So Hyun Kang, Hee Young Na, Younghwa Choi, Eunju Lee, Mira Yoo, Duyeong Hwang, Sa-Hong Min, Young Suk Park, Sang-Hoon Ahn, Yun-Suhk Suh, Do Joong Park, Hye Seung Lee, Hyung-Ho Kim\",\"doi\":\"10.5230/jgc.2023.23.e34\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>According to the American Joint Committee on Cancer cancer staging system, positive peritoneal washing cytology (PWC) indicates stage IV gastric cancer. However, rapid intraoperative diagnosis of PWC has no established reliable method. This study evaluated and compared the diagnostic accuracy of the Shorr and the modified ultrafast Papanicolaou (MUFP) methods for intraoperative PWC.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This study included patients with gastric cancer who were clinically diagnosed with stage cT3 or higher. The Shorr and MUFP methods were performed on all PWC specimens, and the results were compared with those of conventional Papanicolaou (PAP) staining with carcinoembryonic antigen immunohistochemistry. Sensitivity, specificity, and partial likelihood tests were used to compare the 2 methods.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Forty patients underwent intraoperative PWC between November 2019 and August 2021. The average time between specimen reception and slide preparation using Shorr and MUFP methods was 44.4±4.5 minutes, and the average time between specimen reception and pathologic diagnosis was 53.9±8.9 minutes. Eight patients (20.0%) had positive cytology in PAP staining. The Shorr method had a sensitivity of 75.0% and specificity of 93.8%; the MUFP method had 62.5% sensitivity and 100.0% specificity. The area under the curve was 0.844 for Shorr and 0.813 for MUFP. In comparing the C-indices of each method with overall survival, no difference was found among the Shorr, MUFP, and conventional PAP methods.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The Shorr and MUFP methods are acceptable for the intraoperative diagnosis of PWC in advanced gastric cancer.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":56072,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Gastric Cancer\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10630561/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Gastric Cancer\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5230/jgc.2023.23.e34\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Gastric Cancer","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5230/jgc.2023.23.e34","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:根据美国癌症癌症联合委员会的分期系统,腹膜冲洗细胞学(PWC)阳性表明癌症为IV期。然而,PWC的术中快速诊断并没有建立可靠的方法。本研究评估并比较了Shorr和改良的超快速Papanicolaou(MUFP)方法对术中PWC的诊断准确性。材料和方法:本研究包括临床诊断为cT3或更高阶段的癌症患者。对所有PWC标本进行了Shorr和MUFP染色,并将结果与癌胚抗原免疫组织化学常规巴氏染色结果进行了比较。敏感性、特异性和部分似然性测试用于比较这两种方法。结果:在2019年11月至2021年8月期间,40名患者接受了术中PWC。使用Shorr和MUFP方法从标本接收到玻片制备的平均时间为44.4±4.5分钟,从标本接收和病理诊断的平均时间是53.9±8.9分钟。PAP染色细胞学阳性8例(20.0%)。Shorr法的敏感性为75.0%,特异性为93.8%;MUFP法的敏感性为62.5%,特异性为100.0%。Shorr和MUFP的曲线下面积分别为0.844和0.813。在比较每种方法的C指数与总生存率时,Shorr、MUFP和传统PAP方法之间没有发现差异。结论:Shorr和MUFP方法可用于晚期癌症PWC的术中诊断。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
The Shorr Versus Modified Ultrafast Papanicolaou Method for Intraoperative Diagnosis of Peritoneal Washing Cytology in Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Phase II Study.

Purpose: According to the American Joint Committee on Cancer cancer staging system, positive peritoneal washing cytology (PWC) indicates stage IV gastric cancer. However, rapid intraoperative diagnosis of PWC has no established reliable method. This study evaluated and compared the diagnostic accuracy of the Shorr and the modified ultrafast Papanicolaou (MUFP) methods for intraoperative PWC.

Materials and methods: This study included patients with gastric cancer who were clinically diagnosed with stage cT3 or higher. The Shorr and MUFP methods were performed on all PWC specimens, and the results were compared with those of conventional Papanicolaou (PAP) staining with carcinoembryonic antigen immunohistochemistry. Sensitivity, specificity, and partial likelihood tests were used to compare the 2 methods.

Results: Forty patients underwent intraoperative PWC between November 2019 and August 2021. The average time between specimen reception and slide preparation using Shorr and MUFP methods was 44.4±4.5 minutes, and the average time between specimen reception and pathologic diagnosis was 53.9±8.9 minutes. Eight patients (20.0%) had positive cytology in PAP staining. The Shorr method had a sensitivity of 75.0% and specificity of 93.8%; the MUFP method had 62.5% sensitivity and 100.0% specificity. The area under the curve was 0.844 for Shorr and 0.813 for MUFP. In comparing the C-indices of each method with overall survival, no difference was found among the Shorr, MUFP, and conventional PAP methods.

Conclusions: The Shorr and MUFP methods are acceptable for the intraoperative diagnosis of PWC in advanced gastric cancer.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Gastric Cancer
Journal of Gastric Cancer Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology-Cancer Research
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
12.00%
发文量
36
期刊介绍: The Journal of Gastric Cancer (J Gastric Cancer) is an international peer-reviewed journal. Each issue carries high quality clinical and translational researches on gastric neoplasms. Editorial Board of J Gastric Cancer publishes original articles on pathophysiology, molecular oncology, diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of gastric cancer as well as articles on dietary control and improving the quality of life for gastric cancer patients. J Gastric Cancer includes case reports, review articles, how I do it articles, editorials, and letters to the editor.
期刊最新文献
Association of Soy Foods With Gastric Cancer Considering Helicobacter pylori: A Multi-Center Case-Control Study. Clinical Feasibility of Vascular Navigation System During Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Retrospective Comparison With Propensity-Score Matching. Clinicopathologic Characteristics of Trop Family Proteins (Trop-2 and EpCAM) in Gastric Carcinoma. Clinicopathologic Features and Outcomes of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Foveolar-Type Adenocarcinoma of the Stomach. Development and Feasibility Assessment of Mobile Application-Based Digital Therapeutics for Postoperative Supportive Care in Gastric Cancer Patients Following Gastrectomy.
×
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