Comparative evaluation of diagnostic efficacy of cell block versus aspiration cytology

IF 0.4 Q4 BIOLOGY
Nikhil Chaudhary, Subhashis Das, Snigdha Sinha
{"title":"Comparative evaluation of diagnostic efficacy of cell block versus aspiration cytology","authors":"Nikhil Chaudhary, Subhashis Das, Snigdha Sinha","doi":"10.4103/aihb.aihb_98_22","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Fine-needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) has certain disadvantages despite being the most commonly used procedure in the initial diagnosis of any swelling. In such cases, a cell block (CB) study can be a valuable adjunct to smears for establishing a more definitive cytopathological diagnosis. Therefore, this study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of CB with FNAC and to compare the findings of the CB and FNAC with histopathology as the gold standard. Materials and Methods: The study was conducted in the department of pathology at our institute. All the cystic/solid lesions sent for fine-needle aspiration, which yielded sufficient material for the CB, were studied along with detailed clinical history. Results: Out of 66 cases of FNAC and CB, 35 cases were sent for histopathology. The mean age of the patients was 41.36 years, and female patients were more in number (73%). Benign lesions (71.4%) were more than malignant ones (29.6%). The CB section had more thyroid lesions (31%). The diagnostic accuracy of FNAC was found to be 94.28%, while that of CB was 97.14%. Conclusion: Although FNAC is the first line of investigation for mass lesions, and still, to make the best possible use of an aspirate, smears should be used together with CB preparation to provide the best possible morphological and histological diagnosis.","PeriodicalId":7341,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Human Biology","volume":"13 1","pages":"130 - 134"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Human Biology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/aihb.aihb_98_22","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Fine-needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) has certain disadvantages despite being the most commonly used procedure in the initial diagnosis of any swelling. In such cases, a cell block (CB) study can be a valuable adjunct to smears for establishing a more definitive cytopathological diagnosis. Therefore, this study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of CB with FNAC and to compare the findings of the CB and FNAC with histopathology as the gold standard. Materials and Methods: The study was conducted in the department of pathology at our institute. All the cystic/solid lesions sent for fine-needle aspiration, which yielded sufficient material for the CB, were studied along with detailed clinical history. Results: Out of 66 cases of FNAC and CB, 35 cases were sent for histopathology. The mean age of the patients was 41.36 years, and female patients were more in number (73%). Benign lesions (71.4%) were more than malignant ones (29.6%). The CB section had more thyroid lesions (31%). The diagnostic accuracy of FNAC was found to be 94.28%, while that of CB was 97.14%. Conclusion: Although FNAC is the first line of investigation for mass lesions, and still, to make the best possible use of an aspirate, smears should be used together with CB preparation to provide the best possible morphological and histological diagnosis.
细胞阻滞与抽吸细胞学诊断效果的比较评价
引言:细针抽吸细胞学(FNAC)是任何肿胀的初步诊断中最常用的方法,但它有一定的缺点。在这种情况下,细胞块(CB)研究可以作为涂片检查的一种有价值的辅助手段,用于建立更明确的细胞病理学诊断。因此,本研究旨在评估CB与FNAC的疗效,并将CB和FNAC的结果与组织病理学作为金标准进行比较。材料与方法:本研究在我所病理科进行。对所有被送去进行细针抽吸的囊性/实体性病变进行了研究,这些病变为CB提供了足够的材料,并伴有详细的临床病史。结果:在66例FNAC和CB中,35例被送去进行组织病理学检查。患者平均年龄为41.36岁,女性患者较多(73%)。良性病变(71.4%)多于恶性病变(29.6%),CB切片甲状腺病变较多(31%)。FNAC的诊断准确率为94.28%,CB的诊断准确度为97.14%。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
37
审稿时长
11 weeks
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信