Acta cytologica · 2008
Fine needle aspiration cytology of lymph node: experience of 2 university hospitals with conventional smears and liquid-based cytology.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Garbar Christian, Remmelink Myriam, Mascaux Corinne
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare 2 different series of fine needle aspirations (FNA) performed by conventional smears (CS) and liquid-based cytology (TriPath PREP).
STUDY DESIGN: From January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2005, we selected 139 FNA samples of lymph node, if the diagnosis was histologically proven after the initial cytologic diagnosis. Samples came from 2 university hospitals from Brussels: UZ-Brussel (n=96) using liquid-based cytology (LBC) and Hospital Erasme ULB (n=43) using CS.
RESULTS: The number of inadequate samples was greater for LBC than CS, but there was no statistical difference (17.7% vs. 4.7%, p = 0.059). No differences were found between LBC and CS in sensitivity (respectively, 85.0% vs. 85.2%), specificity (84.2% vs. 85.7%) and efficiency (84.8% vs. 85.4%).
CONCLUSION: Despite the cost, the efficiency of lymph node FNA cytology is identical between the CS and LBC performed by the TriPath PREP system. The quality of the smears, both LBC and CS, depends mainly on practitioner dexterity. Nevertheless, one advantage of LBC is that it provides an ancillary technique to improve FNAC diagnosis. In the future, a combination of these technologies with FNAC alone could in some cases take the place of surgical lymph node excision.
STUDY DESIGN: From January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2005, we selected 139 FNA samples of lymph node, if the diagnosis was histologically proven after the initial cytologic diagnosis. Samples came from 2 university hospitals from Brussels: UZ-Brussel (n=96) using liquid-based cytology (LBC) and Hospital Erasme ULB (n=43) using CS.
RESULTS: The number of inadequate samples was greater for LBC than CS, but there was no statistical difference (17.7% vs. 4.7%, p = 0.059). No differences were found between LBC and CS in sensitivity (respectively, 85.0% vs. 85.2%), specificity (84.2% vs. 85.7%) and efficiency (84.8% vs. 85.4%).
CONCLUSION: Despite the cost, the efficiency of lymph node FNA cytology is identical between the CS and LBC performed by the TriPath PREP system. The quality of the smears, both LBC and CS, depends mainly on practitioner dexterity. Nevertheless, one advantage of LBC is that it provides an ancillary technique to improve FNAC diagnosis. In the future, a combination of these technologies with FNAC alone could in some cases take the place of surgical lymph node excision.