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.

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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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