使用国际细胞学学会横滨系统报告基于液体的独家队列中乳腺 FNA 活检的观察者间一致性和恶性肿瘤风险。

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q3 ONCOLOGY
Olawunmi Folarin MD, David Kim MD, Hamza N. Gokozan MD, Jonas J. Heymann MD, Jose V. Scarpa Carniello MD, Lucelina Rosado CT(ASCP), Momin T. Siddiqui MD, Ami Patel MD
{"title":"使用国际细胞学学会横滨系统报告基于液体的独家队列中乳腺 FNA 活检的观察者间一致性和恶性肿瘤风险。","authors":"Olawunmi Folarin MD,&nbsp;David Kim MD,&nbsp;Hamza N. Gokozan MD,&nbsp;Jonas J. Heymann MD,&nbsp;Jose V. Scarpa Carniello MD,&nbsp;Lucelina Rosado CT(ASCP),&nbsp;Momin T. Siddiqui MD,&nbsp;Ami Patel MD","doi":"10.1002/cncy.22798","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Per the College of American Pathologist’s National Breast Fine Needle Aspiration Biopsy (FNAB) Practice Survey, ∼40% of laboratories use liquid-based cytology (LBC) for breast FNAB. The reproducibility of the International Academy of Cytology Yokohama System (YS) for reporting breast FNAB on LBC was explored.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Design</h3>\n \n <p>Breast FNAB specimens submitted as LBC only (all ThinPrep) between January 2017 and January 2021 were retrieved. Cases without histopathologic follow-up were excluded. Clinical and radiologic information was collected. One cytologist and six cytopathologists rendered diagnoses per YS. All reviewers were blinded to the original diagnosis and histopathologic follow-up. The risk of malignancy was calculated. Concordance rates were calculated by a weighted Cohen Kappa score (κ).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Review of 110 cases demonstrated substantial to near-perfect agreement between each reviewer (κ = 0.73–0.91) and follow-up histopathology (κ = 0.66–0.85). The agreement was lowest in the inadequate (κ = 0.05) and atypical (κ = 0.04) categories. The lack of concordance in the atypical category was common in cases with low cellularity or incomplete structural features. The risk of malignancy for inadequate, benign, atypical, suspicious for malignancy, and malignant categories were 12.5% (2/16), 3% (2/65), 67%, (8/12) 100% (1/1), and 100% (16/16).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Interobserver agreement is excellent using the five YS categories in LBC. Lack of cellularity and incomplete architectural features were barriers to perfect agreement. Established pitfalls in the interpretation of LBC were cause for atypical diagnoses. Continuous training and education are recommended to avoid misdiagnosis because of the nonconventional cytomorphologic features of LBC and to improve inadequate and atypical rates within YS.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":9410,"journal":{"name":"Cancer Cytopathology","volume":"132 5","pages":"320-326"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Interobserver agreement and risk of malignancy using the International Academy of Cytology Yokohama System for reporting breast FNA biopsy in a liquid-based exclusive cohort\",\"authors\":\"Olawunmi Folarin MD,&nbsp;David Kim MD,&nbsp;Hamza N. Gokozan MD,&nbsp;Jonas J. Heymann MD,&nbsp;Jose V. Scarpa Carniello MD,&nbsp;Lucelina Rosado CT(ASCP),&nbsp;Momin T. Siddiqui MD,&nbsp;Ami Patel MD\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/cncy.22798\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>Per the College of American Pathologist’s National Breast Fine Needle Aspiration Biopsy (FNAB) Practice Survey, ∼40% of laboratories use liquid-based cytology (LBC) for breast FNAB. The reproducibility of the International Academy of Cytology Yokohama System (YS) for reporting breast FNAB on LBC was explored.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Design</h3>\\n \\n <p>Breast FNAB specimens submitted as LBC only (all ThinPrep) between January 2017 and January 2021 were retrieved. Cases without histopathologic follow-up were excluded. Clinical and radiologic information was collected. One cytologist and six cytopathologists rendered diagnoses per YS. All reviewers were blinded to the original diagnosis and histopathologic follow-up. The risk of malignancy was calculated. Concordance rates were calculated by a weighted Cohen Kappa score (κ).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Review of 110 cases demonstrated substantial to near-perfect agreement between each reviewer (κ = 0.73–0.91) and follow-up histopathology (κ = 0.66–0.85). The agreement was lowest in the inadequate (κ = 0.05) and atypical (κ = 0.04) categories. The lack of concordance in the atypical category was common in cases with low cellularity or incomplete structural features. The risk of malignancy for inadequate, benign, atypical, suspicious for malignancy, and malignant categories were 12.5% (2/16), 3% (2/65), 67%, (8/12) 100% (1/1), and 100% (16/16).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>Interobserver agreement is excellent using the five YS categories in LBC. Lack of cellularity and incomplete architectural features were barriers to perfect agreement. Established pitfalls in the interpretation of LBC were cause for atypical diagnoses. Continuous training and education are recommended to avoid misdiagnosis because of the nonconventional cytomorphologic features of LBC and to improve inadequate and atypical rates within YS.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9410,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cancer Cytopathology\",\"volume\":\"132 5\",\"pages\":\"320-326\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cancer Cytopathology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cncy.22798\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cancer Cytopathology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cncy.22798","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:根据美国病理学家学会的全国乳腺细针抽吸活检(FNAB)实践调查,40%的实验室使用液基细胞学(LBC)进行乳腺FNAB。本研究探讨了国际细胞学学会横滨系统(YS)报告液基细胞学乳腺FNAB的重现性:检索了 2017 年 1 月至 2021 年 1 月期间仅作为 LBC 提交的乳腺 FNAB 标本(均为 ThinPrep)。排除无组织病理学随访的病例。收集了临床和放射学信息。每位YS由一位细胞学专家和六位细胞病理学专家做出诊断。所有审稿人对原始诊断和组织病理学随访均为盲人。计算恶性肿瘤的风险。结果:110例病例的复查结果显示,每位复查者(κ = 0.73-0.91)与随访组织病理学(κ = 0.66-0.85)之间的一致性基本接近完美。不充分(κ = 0.05)和不典型(κ = 0.04)类别的一致性最低。非典型类别中缺乏一致性的情况常见于细胞数量少或结构特征不完整的病例。不充分、良性、非典型、恶性可疑和恶性类别的恶性风险分别为12.5%(2/16)、3%(2/65)、67%、(8/12)100%(1/1)和100%(16/16):结论:在 LBC 中使用五种 YS 分类,观察者之间的一致性非常好。缺乏细胞性和不完整的结构特征阻碍了完美的一致性。LBC解读中的既定误区是导致非典型诊断的原因。建议继续开展培训和教育,以避免因 LBC 的非常规细胞形态学特征而造成误诊,并提高 YS 中的不足率和非典型率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Interobserver agreement and risk of malignancy using the International Academy of Cytology Yokohama System for reporting breast FNA biopsy in a liquid-based exclusive cohort

Background

Per the College of American Pathologist’s National Breast Fine Needle Aspiration Biopsy (FNAB) Practice Survey, ∼40% of laboratories use liquid-based cytology (LBC) for breast FNAB. The reproducibility of the International Academy of Cytology Yokohama System (YS) for reporting breast FNAB on LBC was explored.

Design

Breast FNAB specimens submitted as LBC only (all ThinPrep) between January 2017 and January 2021 were retrieved. Cases without histopathologic follow-up were excluded. Clinical and radiologic information was collected. One cytologist and six cytopathologists rendered diagnoses per YS. All reviewers were blinded to the original diagnosis and histopathologic follow-up. The risk of malignancy was calculated. Concordance rates were calculated by a weighted Cohen Kappa score (κ).

Results

Review of 110 cases demonstrated substantial to near-perfect agreement between each reviewer (κ = 0.73–0.91) and follow-up histopathology (κ = 0.66–0.85). The agreement was lowest in the inadequate (κ = 0.05) and atypical (κ = 0.04) categories. The lack of concordance in the atypical category was common in cases with low cellularity or incomplete structural features. The risk of malignancy for inadequate, benign, atypical, suspicious for malignancy, and malignant categories were 12.5% (2/16), 3% (2/65), 67%, (8/12) 100% (1/1), and 100% (16/16).

Conclusion

Interobserver agreement is excellent using the five YS categories in LBC. Lack of cellularity and incomplete architectural features were barriers to perfect agreement. Established pitfalls in the interpretation of LBC were cause for atypical diagnoses. Continuous training and education are recommended to avoid misdiagnosis because of the nonconventional cytomorphologic features of LBC and to improve inadequate and atypical rates within YS.

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
Cancer Cytopathology
Cancer Cytopathology 医学-病理学
CiteScore
7.00
自引率
17.60%
发文量
130
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Cancer Cytopathology provides a unique forum for interaction and dissemination of original research and educational information relevant to the practice of cytopathology and its related oncologic disciplines. The journal strives to have a positive effect on cancer prevention, early detection, diagnosis, and cure by the publication of high-quality content. The mission of Cancer Cytopathology is to present and inform readers of new applications, technological advances, cutting-edge research, novel applications of molecular techniques, and relevant review articles related to cytopathology.
×
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