Diagnostic Accuracy of Cytology Smear and Frozen Section in Glioma
Glioma
cytology smear
frozen section
diagnostic accuracy
Journal
Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP
ISSN: 2476-762X
Titre abrégé: Asian Pac J Cancer Prev
Pays: Thailand
ID NLM: 101130625
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
26 Feb 2019
26 Feb 2019
Historique:
entrez:
27
2
2019
pubmed:
26
2
2019
medline:
10
7
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Glioma is the commonest primary intracranial tumour and it has been the most predominant tumour in many studies.
It accounts for 24.7% of all primary brain tumour and 74.6% of malignant brain tumour. Intraoperative diagnosis
plays a crucial role in determining the patient management. Frozen section has been the established technique in
providing rapid and accurate intraoperative diagnosis. However due to some disadvantages like ice crystal artefact,
high expenditure and requirement of skilled technician, there is increase usage of cytology smear either replacing or
supplementing frozen section technique. The aim of this review is to determine the diagnostic accuracy of cytology
smear and frozen section in glioma and to see whether there is significant difference between those techniques. The
overall diagnostic accuracy for frozen section in glioma ranging from 78.4% to 95% while for cytology smear, the
diagnostic accuracy ranging from 50% to 100%. Based on certain literatures, no statistically difference was observed
in diagnostic accuracy of cytology smear and frozen section. Thus, cytology smear provides an alternative method in
establishing intraoperative diagnosis. Both cytology smear and frozen section are complimentary to each other. It is
recommended to use both techniques to improve the diagnostic accuracy in addition with adequate knowledge, clinical
history, neuroimaging and intraoperative findings.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30803189
doi: 10.31557/APJCP.2019.20.2.321
pmc: PMC6897032
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
321-325Informations de copyright
Creative Commons Attribution License
Références
Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2011;12(7):1693-6
pubmed: 22126546
J Cytol. 2016 Oct-Dec;33(4):205-209
pubmed: 28028335
J Cytol. 2016 Apr-Jun;33(2):93-7
pubmed: 27279685
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2007 Oct;131(10):1532-40
pubmed: 17922589
Oman Med J. 2016 Nov;31(6):414-420
pubmed: 27974956
Neurol India. 2009 Jul-Aug;57(4):464-8
pubmed: 19770549
Cancer Invest. 2016;34(1):12-5
pubmed: 26695622
Acta Neurol Scand. 2003 Sep;108(3):153-6
pubmed: 12911456
Diagn Cytopathol. 2012 Feb;40(2):104-12
pubmed: 22246925
Diagn Cytopathol. 2002 May;26(5):329-33
pubmed: 11992378
Am J Clin Pathol. 2005 Nov;124(5):755-68
pubmed: 16203285
J Cytol. 2015 Jul-Sep;32(3):153-8
pubmed: 26729974
J Neurooncol. 2008 Sep;89(3):287-311
pubmed: 18712282
Curr Treat Options Oncol. 2016 Oct;17(10):51
pubmed: 27501915
J Cytol. 2011 Oct;28(4):147-58
pubmed: 22090687
Kathmandu Univ Med J (KUMJ). 2008 Oct-Dec;6(24):453-7
pubmed: 19483425
Ann Clin Lab Sci. 2001 Apr;31(2):133-9
pubmed: 11337901
JAMA Oncol. 2015 Aug;1(5):662-7
pubmed: 26181761
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014 Jul 29;111(30):11121-6
pubmed: 24982150
J Neurosurg. 2014 Jun;120(6):1288-97
pubmed: 24745708
J Cytol. 2010 Jul;27(3):81-5
pubmed: 21187881
Pathol Res Pract. 2016 Mar;212(3):179-84
pubmed: 26847731
Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. ;18(3):659-666
pubmed: 28440972
Surg Neurol Int. 2014 Dec 03;5:170
pubmed: 25593754