Conventional vs. Liquid Based Cytology in Fine Needle Aspirates of Lung and Mediastinal Masses

Garima Singh, P. Agarwal, M. Goel, Madhu Kumar, D. Singh
{"title":"Conventional vs. Liquid Based Cytology in Fine Needle Aspirates of Lung and Mediastinal Masses","authors":"Garima Singh, P. Agarwal, M. Goel, Madhu Kumar, D. Singh","doi":"10.4172/2161-105X.1000400","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Lung cancer most common worldwide cancer, early diagnosis makes effective treatment in lung \n cancer. Liquid Based Cytology (LBC) for non-gynae specimens has gained popularity over conventional Cytology (CS) \n during last one decade because of increased sensitivity and specificity. \nAim and objectives: To assess the diagnostic utility of LBC versus CS in fine needle aspirates of lung and \n mediastinal mass lesions. Compare cyto-morphological parameters in terms of adequacy, interpretation, concordance \n and diagnostic efficiency. \nMaterials and Methods: Eighty -two cases suspected of lung or mediastinal mass lesions underwent imagine \n guided Transbronchial Needle aspiration (TBNA) or Trans Thoracic Needle aspiration (TTFNA). Fine needle passes \n were made for both conventional and LBC smears. All smears were examined and diagnosis was correlated in each \n case with histopathology as gold standard for final diagnosis. Results: Histopathology of 82 cases, 21 were non \n -neoplastic and 61 were malignant respectively.34 cases of adenocarcinoma, 15 cases of squamous cell carcinoma, \n 5 cases of adenosquamous cell carcinoma, 4 cases of small cell carcinoma, 1 cases of poorly differentiated 1 case of \n carcinoid and 1 cases of germ cell tumor. LBC were diagnosed 17 non -neoplastic and 54 were malignant respectively. \n 25 cases of adenocarcinoma, 11 cases of squamous cell carcinoma, 5 cases of adenosquamous cell carcinoma and \n 3 cases of small cell carcinoma, CS was diagnosed 4 non -neoplastic and 37 were malignant respectively. 24 cases \n of adenocarcinoma, 7 cases of squamous cell carcinoma, 4 cases of adenosquamous cell carcinoma and 2 cases of \n small cell carcinoma. \nConclusion: Concordance of LBC with histopathology was found in higher proportion (72%) as compared to \n conventional smear (48.8%) (p=0.004), because percentage of adequacy for LBC (85.37%) was higher as compared \n to CS (56.1%) (P<0.001). The assessment of all the morphological parameters were predominantly equal in both \n methods except in few cases.","PeriodicalId":90449,"journal":{"name":"Austin journal of pulmonary and respiratory medicine","volume":"110 1","pages":"1-5"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-04-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Austin journal of pulmonary and respiratory medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4172/2161-105X.1000400","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Background: Lung cancer most common worldwide cancer, early diagnosis makes effective treatment in lung cancer. Liquid Based Cytology (LBC) for non-gynae specimens has gained popularity over conventional Cytology (CS) during last one decade because of increased sensitivity and specificity. Aim and objectives: To assess the diagnostic utility of LBC versus CS in fine needle aspirates of lung and mediastinal mass lesions. Compare cyto-morphological parameters in terms of adequacy, interpretation, concordance and diagnostic efficiency. Materials and Methods: Eighty -two cases suspected of lung or mediastinal mass lesions underwent imagine guided Transbronchial Needle aspiration (TBNA) or Trans Thoracic Needle aspiration (TTFNA). Fine needle passes were made for both conventional and LBC smears. All smears were examined and diagnosis was correlated in each case with histopathology as gold standard for final diagnosis. Results: Histopathology of 82 cases, 21 were non -neoplastic and 61 were malignant respectively.34 cases of adenocarcinoma, 15 cases of squamous cell carcinoma, 5 cases of adenosquamous cell carcinoma, 4 cases of small cell carcinoma, 1 cases of poorly differentiated 1 case of carcinoid and 1 cases of germ cell tumor. LBC were diagnosed 17 non -neoplastic and 54 were malignant respectively. 25 cases of adenocarcinoma, 11 cases of squamous cell carcinoma, 5 cases of adenosquamous cell carcinoma and 3 cases of small cell carcinoma, CS was diagnosed 4 non -neoplastic and 37 were malignant respectively. 24 cases of adenocarcinoma, 7 cases of squamous cell carcinoma, 4 cases of adenosquamous cell carcinoma and 2 cases of small cell carcinoma. Conclusion: Concordance of LBC with histopathology was found in higher proportion (72%) as compared to conventional smear (48.8%) (p=0.004), because percentage of adequacy for LBC (85.37%) was higher as compared to CS (56.1%) (P<0.001). The assessment of all the morphological parameters were predominantly equal in both methods except in few cases.
肺和纵隔肿块细针抽吸的常规与液体细胞学比较
背景:肺癌是世界范围内最常见的癌症,早期诊断有助于肺癌的有效治疗。在过去的十年中,液体细胞学(LBC)在非妇科标本中比传统细胞学(CS)更受欢迎,因为它增加了灵敏度和特异性。目的和目的:评估LBC与CS在细针抽吸肺和纵隔肿块病变中的诊断价值。比较细胞形态学参数的充分性、解释、一致性和诊断效率。材料与方法:对疑似肺或纵隔肿块病变的82例患者行图像引导下经支气管针吸(TBNA)或经胸针吸(TTFNA)。对常规涂片和LBC涂片进行细针穿刺术。所有涂片检查和诊断与组织病理学作为最终诊断的金标准相关。结果:82例,非肿瘤性21例,恶性61例。腺癌34例,鳞状细胞癌15例,腺鳞状细胞癌5例,小细胞癌4例,低分化类癌1例,生殖细胞瘤1例。LBC非肿瘤性17例,恶性54例。其中腺癌25例,鳞状细胞癌11例,腺鳞状细胞癌5例,小细胞癌3例,CS诊断非肿瘤性4例,恶性37例。腺癌24例,鳞状细胞癌7例,腺鳞状细胞癌4例,小细胞癌2例。结论:与常规涂片(48.8%)相比,LBC与组织病理学的符合率(72%)更高(p=0.004),因为LBC的充分率(85.37%)高于CS (56.1%) (p <0.001)。除少数情况外,两种方法对所有形态学参数的评价基本相同。
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信