scholarly journals Rapid assessment of fine needle aspiration and the final diagnosis--how often and why the diagnoses are changed

CytoJournal ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 25 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carolyn Woon ◽  
Ricardo H Bardales ◽  
Michael W Stanley ◽  
Edward B Stelow
Keyword(s):  
Fine Needle Aspiration ◽  
Diagnostic Yield ◽  
Rapid Assessment ◽  
Diagnostic Procedures ◽  
Final Diagnosis ◽  
Needle Aspiration ◽  
Additional Material ◽  
Fine Needle ◽  
Inter Observer Variability ◽  
Ancillary Studies

Background: On-site rapid interpretation (RI) of fine needle aspiration (FNA) has been shown to increase the diagnostic yield of FNA and decrease the need for repeat diagnostic procedures. Because the pathologist interprets only a fraction of the sample and has limited resources available at such times, an occasional RI diagnosis will be changed at the time of the final diagnosis. We investigated how often these changes in diagnoses occur and the possible reasons for the changes. Methods: All cytology reports from 1/1/02 to 12/31/03 from a single institution were reviewed. Cases with RI with discrepant final diagnoses were noted. The discrepant diagnoses were categorized depending on how they were changed. Possible sources for changed diagnoses were noted. Results: Between 1/1/02 and 12/31/03 there were 1368 RIs of FNAs. Of these 80 (5.8%) had discrepancies between the RIs and final diagnoses. Seventy-eight cases had additional slides and/or cell block at time of final diagnosis. 16 cases had ancillary studies available at final diagnosis. Consultant pathologists were used in 7 cases. Different pathologists interpreted the RI and final diagnosis in 31 cases. Conclusion: Although uncommon, discrepancies between RIs and final diagnoses occur 5.8% of the time at our institution. Most commonly, this involves a change of diagnosis from either non-diagnostic or benign to malignancy. Although much of this is likely due to the presence of additional material and information at the time of final diagnosis, the number of cases that had different pathologists involved in the RI and final diagnosis suggests that inter-observer variability may also play some role.

CT-guided transthoracic fine-needle aspiration versus transbronchial fluoroscopy-guided needle aspiration in pulmonary nodules

1998 ◽  
Vol 39 (4) ◽  
pp. 395-399 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Shankar ◽  
Madhu Gulati ◽  
D. Gupta ◽  
A. Rajwanshi ◽  
S. Suri
Keyword(s):  
Fine Needle Aspiration ◽  
Diagnostic Yield ◽  
Pulmonary Nodules ◽  
Final Diagnosis ◽  
Needle Aspiration ◽  
Definitive Diagnosis ◽  
Ct Guided ◽  
Fine Needle ◽  
Group A ◽  
Made In

Purpose: To evaluate the diagnostic yield of CT-guided (CTNAB) and fluoroscopy-guided transbronchial (TBNA) fine-needle aspiration cytology in pulmonary nodules and to compare their complications. Material and Methods: Thirty patients with pulmonary nodules not abutting upon the chest wall and inaccessible to bronchoscopy were randomised for CTNAB or TBNA. Eighteen patients underwent CTNAB and 16 TBNA. Four patients underwent both procedures. Results: In the CTNAB group, a definitive diagnosis could be made in 14 (78%) out of 18 patients whereas in the TBNA group, a definitive diagnosis was made in 11 (69%) out of 16 patients. This difference was not statistically significant ( p>0.05). The final diagnosis in 29 out of 30 patients comprised primary bronchogenic carcinoma in 14 patients, metastases in 5 patients, and benign lesions in 10 patients (34%) of which 3 lesions (30%) were of tuberculous aetiology. There were 2 asymptomatic pneumothoraces in the CTNAB group and no complication was observed in the TBNA group. Conclusion: Both techniques were safe and effective in the diagnosis of peripheral pulmonary lesions. TBNA was best suited for lesions larger than 3 cm and located in the middle and lower lobes while CTNAB could be used for any lesions.

scholarly journals Does Onsite Cytotechnology Evaluation Improve the Accuracy of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration Biopsy?

2009 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 26-30 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fahad Alsohaibani ◽  
Safwat Girgis ◽  
Gurpal Singh Sandha
Keyword(s):  
Endoscopic Ultrasound ◽  
Fine Needle Aspiration ◽  
Diagnostic Yield ◽  
Final Diagnosis ◽  
Needle Aspiration ◽  
Tissue Sampling ◽  
Ultrasound Guided ◽  
Fine Needle ◽  
Group I ◽  
Group Ii

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is the preferred modality for the cytological diagnosis of various cancers. Onsite cytopathology interpretation is not available in most centres.OBJECTIVE: To assess whether the the adequacy of tissue sampling assessed by an onsite cytotechnologist improves the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA.METHODS: The present study is a retrospective review of all patients undergoing solid mass EUS-FNA between September 2005 and August 2007. Patients in group I (September 2005 to August 2006) had cytology slides prepared by an endoscopy nurse. Patients in group II (September 2006 to August 2007) had cytology slides prepared, stained and assessed for adequacy of tissue sampling by a cytotechnologist in the endoscopy suite. The final cytopathological diagnosis (definitely positive, definitely negative or inconclusive) was compared between the two groups.RESULTS: A total of 49 EUS-FNA procedures were performed in 47 patients in group I and 60 EUS-FNA procedures in 55 patients in group II. Pancreatic masses were the most common target site in both groups. The total number of needle passes was 105 in group I (mean 2.14 passes per patient; range one to five needle passes) and 158 in group II (mean 2.63 passes per patient; range one to four needle passes). The difference in the number of needle passes was not statistically significant between groups. The final diagnosis was definite in 53% in group I compared with 77% in group II (P=0.01). The percentage of inconclusive diagnoses was 47% in group I and 23% in group II (P=0.001).CONCLUSION: Onsite cytotechnologist interpretation of adequacy of tissue sampling significantly improves the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA. This appears to be independent of the total number of needle passes undertaken for tissue sampling.

scholarly journals Endoscopic-Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration and the Role of the Cytopathologist in Solid Pancreatic Lesion Diagnosis

2012 ◽  
Vol 2012 ◽  
pp. 1-17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shahzad Iqbal ◽  
David Friedel ◽  
Mala Gupta ◽  
Lorna Ogden ◽  
Stavros N. Stavropoulos
Keyword(s):  
Endoscopic Ultrasound ◽  
Fine Needle Aspiration ◽  
Diagnostic Yield ◽  
Imaging Modality ◽  
Final Diagnosis ◽  
Needle Aspiration ◽  
Pancreatic Lesion ◽  
Fine Needle ◽  
Close Interaction

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is the most sensitive imaging modality for solid pancreatic lesions. The specificity, however, is low (about 75%). It can be increased to 100% with an accuracy of 95% by the addition of fine-needle aspiration (FNA). Cytopathology plays an important role. The final diagnosis is based upon the correlation of clinical, EUS, and cytologic features. A close interaction with the cytopathologist is required in improving the diagnostic yield. In this paper, we present an overview of the role of EUS-guided FNA and importance of close interaction with the cytopathologist. Day to day examples of different solid pancreatic lesions have been presented at the end.

scholarly journals Pull vs. wet: rendimiento diagnóstico y calidad de las muestras de las PAAF guiadas por USE en las masas sólidas del páncreas

2021 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Cecilia Curvale ◽  
Ignacio Málaga ◽  
Paloma Rojas Saunero ◽  
Viviana Tassi ◽  
Enrique Martins ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Endoscopic Ultrasound ◽  
Fine Needle Aspiration ◽  
Diagnostic Yield ◽  
Needle Aspiration ◽  
Double Blind Study ◽  
Cell Block ◽  
Ultrasound Guided ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Fine Needle ◽  
Significant Difference

Differential diagnosis of pancreatic masses is challenging. The endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration method with the highest diagnostic yield has not been established. It was realized a prospective, randomized, double-blind study of the endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration in solid lesions of the pancreas to compare and evaluate diagnostic yield and aspirate quality between wet and pull technique. Forty-one patients were enrolled. The wet technique presented a sensitivity, a specificity, a positive and negative predictive value, and a diagnostic accuracy of 58.3%, 100%, 100%, 25% and 63.4%, respectively. In the capillary technique they were: 75%, 100%, 100%, 35.7% and 78.1%, respectively. Comparing the diagnostic yield between both techniques, there was no statistically significant difference (McNemar’s test p = 0.388). Regarding the cellularity of the specimen, both in cytology and the cell block samples, no significant difference was observed between the techniques (p = 0.84 and 0.61, respectively). With respect to contaminating blood in the specimen, there was no difference in cytology samples (p = 0.89) and no difference in cell block samples (p = 0.08). The suitability of cytology samples for diagnosis was similar in both techniques (wet = 57.5% and capillary = 56.7%, p = 0.94) and there was no difference in cell block samples (wet = 75% and capillary = 66.1%, p = 0.38). In this study we did not observe differences in diagnostic yield or sample quality. Since both techniques are effective, we suggest the simultaneous and alternate use of both methods.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document