A Novel Approach to Classification and Reporting of Lymph Node Fine-Needle Cytology: Application of the Proposed Sydney System.
Sydney system
fine-needle cytology
lymph node
lymphoproliferative disorders
metastasis
reporting system
Journal
Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)
ISSN: 2075-4418
Titre abrégé: Diagnostics (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101658402
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
21 Jul 2021
21 Jul 2021
Historique:
received:
13
06
2021
revised:
16
07
2021
accepted:
20
07
2021
entrez:
27
8
2021
pubmed:
28
8
2021
medline:
28
8
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Fine-needle cytology (FNC) is a useful diagnostic tool in the first line evaluation of lymphadenopathy of unknown aetiology. Nevertheless, considering the large number of conditions presenting as lymphadenopathy, lymph node cytology represents a challenging scenario. Recently, an expert panel published the proposal of the Sydney system for performing classification and reporting of lymph node cytopathology; the aim of the present study was to evaluate the applicability of this system. Thus, 300 lymph node FNCs performed over 1 year were reviewed and categorized according to the Sydney system classification. Overall, n = 20 cases (6.7%) were categorized as L1-inadequate/non-diagnostic; n = 104 (34.7%) as benign (L2); n = 25 (8.3%) as atypical (L3); n = 13 (4.3%) as suspicious (L4), and n = 138 (46%) as malignant (L5). FNC diagnoses were correlated with histopathologic and clinical follow-up to assess the diagnostic accuracy and the risk of malignancy (ROM) for each diagnostic category. Statistical analysis showed the following results: sensitivity 98.47%, specificity 95.33%, positive predictive value 96.27%, negative predictive value 98.08%, and accuracy 97.06%. The ROM was 50% for the category L1, 1.92% for L2, 58.3% for L3, and 100% for L4 and L5. In conclusion, FNC coupled with ancillary techniques ensures satisfactory diagnostic accuracy and the implementation of the Sydney system may improve the practice of cytopathologists.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34441249
pii: diagnostics11081314
doi: 10.3390/diagnostics11081314
pmc: PMC8393909
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
Cytopathology. 2006 Oct;17(5):275-87
pubmed: 16961657
Acta Cytol. 2016;60(4):302-314
pubmed: 27554776
Cytopathology. 2010 Oct;21(5):300-10
pubmed: 20132132
Diagn Cytopathol. 2006 Jul;34(7):472-8
pubmed: 16783780
Cytopathology. 2017 Jun;28(3):203-215
pubmed: 28008668
Cancer Cytopathol. 2017 Jun;125(S6):486-493
pubmed: 28609004
Am J Clin Pathol. 2021 Jan 4;155(1):12-37
pubmed: 33219376
J Clin Pathol. 2016 Dec;69(12):1109-1115
pubmed: 27169754
Acta Cytol. 2020;64(4):306-322
pubmed: 32454496
Acta Cytol. 2021;65(3):213-219
pubmed: 33535203
Cancer Cytopathol. 2021 Apr 8;:
pubmed: 33830657
Diagn Cytopathol. 2019 Jan;47(1):53-63
pubmed: 30499199
Cancer Cytopathol. 2018 Aug;126 Suppl 8:615-626
pubmed: 30156771
Clin Endosc. 2021 Mar 04;:
pubmed: 33657782
Diagn Cytopathol. 2019 Aug;47(8):749-757
pubmed: 30953406
Cancer Cytopathol. 2018 Sep;126(9):797-808
pubmed: 30194715
Pathol Res Pract. 2021 Jan;217:153294
pubmed: 33290901
Cytometry B Clin Cytom. 2014 Aug 23;:
pubmed: 25155231
Cytopathology. 2012 Apr;23(2):73-5
pubmed: 22429284
Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2019 Nov;16(11):1432-1439
pubmed: 31291126
Acta Cytol. 2016;60(4):372-384
pubmed: 27560152
J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2021 May 3;:
pubmed: 34088642
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2015 Feb;139(2):245-51
pubmed: 25611108
J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2017 Mar - Apr;6(2):80-88
pubmed: 31042638
Cytopathology. 2019 Jul;30(4):348-362
pubmed: 31004534
Int J Clin Exp Pathol. 2014 Oct 15;7(11):7717-25
pubmed: 25550808