An Investigation on the Results of Cytopathologic Tests of Pancreatobiliary System Performed in the Pathology Department in Iran.
Cytopathology
Pancreatobiliary system
ROSE
Sensitivity
Specificity
Journal
Iranian journal of pathology
ISSN: 1735-5303
Titre abrégé: Iran J Pathol
Pays: Iran
ID NLM: 101515128
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2021
2021
Historique:
received:
18
10
2020
accepted:
05
01
2021
entrez:
26
7
2021
pubmed:
27
7
2021
medline:
27
7
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Pancreatobiliary system disorders commonly include inflammatory diseases and tumors. Diagnosis of pancreatic cancer is challenging and is mostly achieved when the disease has extensively progressed, and metastasis has occurred. Therefore, this study was performed to evaluate cytopathology in the diagnosis of Pancreatobiliary malignancies, which can improve diagnostic adequacy and accuracy. A total of 116 cytopathologic results of the Pancreatobiliary system, performed in the Pathology Department of Taleghani Hospital, Tehran, Iran during 2017-2018 were selected and examined in this observational study. The frequency of different results was determined and compared with other variables. The most common location of the lesions was the pancreas (47%). The lesions were categorized as malignant, benign, negative, suspicious for malignancy (SFM), and atypical in 28%, 10%, 24%, 14%, and 9% of the cases, respectively. In other cases, lesions were considered non-diagnostic. Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) was conducted in 25% of patients. Compatibility of the initial and final diagnoses was 100%, 50%, and 60% in cases with "malignant", "benign", and "negative" diagnoses, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, as well as positive and negative predictive values of cytopathology in the diagnosis of Pancreatobiliary lesions were 75.8%, 92.3%, 95.9%, and 61.5%, respectively. Our findings indicated that half of the lesions of the Pancreatobiliary system were positive, SFM, and atypical. Fine-needle aspiration (FNA) and endoscopic ultrasound-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) were effective modalities in diagnosing Pancreatobiliary malignancies. The most important point in our experience is the increase in diagnostic sensitivity in the presence of ROSE. Therefore, the simultaneous use of ROSE and EUS-FNA can reduce the need for re-sampling.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
Pancreatobiliary system disorders commonly include inflammatory diseases and tumors. Diagnosis of pancreatic cancer is challenging and is mostly achieved when the disease has extensively progressed, and metastasis has occurred. Therefore, this study was performed to evaluate cytopathology in the diagnosis of Pancreatobiliary malignancies, which can improve diagnostic adequacy and accuracy.
METHODS
METHODS
A total of 116 cytopathologic results of the Pancreatobiliary system, performed in the Pathology Department of Taleghani Hospital, Tehran, Iran during 2017-2018 were selected and examined in this observational study. The frequency of different results was determined and compared with other variables.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The most common location of the lesions was the pancreas (47%). The lesions were categorized as malignant, benign, negative, suspicious for malignancy (SFM), and atypical in 28%, 10%, 24%, 14%, and 9% of the cases, respectively. In other cases, lesions were considered non-diagnostic. Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) was conducted in 25% of patients. Compatibility of the initial and final diagnoses was 100%, 50%, and 60% in cases with "malignant", "benign", and "negative" diagnoses, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, as well as positive and negative predictive values of cytopathology in the diagnosis of Pancreatobiliary lesions were 75.8%, 92.3%, 95.9%, and 61.5%, respectively.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Our findings indicated that half of the lesions of the Pancreatobiliary system were positive, SFM, and atypical. Fine-needle aspiration (FNA) and endoscopic ultrasound-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) were effective modalities in diagnosing Pancreatobiliary malignancies. The most important point in our experience is the increase in diagnostic sensitivity in the presence of ROSE. Therefore, the simultaneous use of ROSE and EUS-FNA can reduce the need for re-sampling.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34306121
doi: 10.30699/IJP.2021.131467.2462
pmc: PMC8298047
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
256-265Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declared that there is no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this article.
Références
World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2019 Aug 16;11(8):454-471
pubmed: 31523377
Pancreas. 2012 Nov;41(8):1225-9
pubmed: 23086246
Chest. 2005 Oct;128(4):3004-9
pubmed: 16236979
Coll Antropol. 2010 Mar;34(1):139-43
pubmed: 20432742
Pathol Oncol Res. 2005;11(3):145-55
pubmed: 16195768
Cytopathology. 2013 Jun;24(3):159-71
pubmed: 23711182
Telemed J E Health. 2014 Sep;20(9):822-7
pubmed: 25093731
PLoS One. 2016 Sep 22;11(9):e0163056
pubmed: 27657529
Gastrointest Endosc. 2015 Jan;81(1):168-76
pubmed: 25440678
JOP. 2010 Jan 08;11(1):1-7
pubmed: 20065544
Endosc Ultrasound. 2019 Sep-Oct;8(5):283-287
pubmed: 31603143
Dig Dis Sci. 2011 Nov;56(11):3370-5
pubmed: 21688127
Diagn Cytopathol. 1997 Apr;16(4):358-63
pubmed: 9143832
Gastrointest Endosc. 2007 Sep;66(3):483-90
pubmed: 17725938
Endoscopy. 2006 Jun;38 Suppl 1:S30-5
pubmed: 16802220
Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2015;2015:580254
pubmed: 25883643
Gastrointest Endosc. 2005 Nov;62(5):728-36; quiz 751, 753
pubmed: 16246688
Cancer Cytopathol. 2014 Jun;122(6):399-411
pubmed: 24777782
Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2013 Jun;17(11):1517-22
pubmed: 23771540
World J Gastroenterol. 2008 Jan 28;14(4):569-73
pubmed: 18203289
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2000 Mar;124(3):387-92
pubmed: 10705391
Endosc Ultrasound. 2019 Jul-Aug;8(4):269-276
pubmed: 31115388
J Clin Gastroenterol. 1995 Jul;21(1):48-60
pubmed: 7560834
Lancet. 2011 Aug 13;378(9791):607-20
pubmed: 21620466
World J Gastroenterol. 2014 Jul 28;20(28):9451-7
pubmed: 25071339
Gastroenterology. 2012 May;142(5):1112-1121.e2
pubmed: 22326996
Am J Gastroenterol. 2003 Jun;98(6):1289-94
pubmed: 12818271
Int J Cancer. 2013 Mar 1;132(5):1133-45
pubmed: 22752881