Adequacy and accuracy of salivary gland fine needle aspiration cytology

Nur, Mutaz Mohammed; Murphy, Maurice

doi:10.1007/s11845-015-1352-z

Cited by 15 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Also, if the preoperative FNAC was suspicious of malignancy, in 13.8% of the cases, the final pathology was benign. Similar rates of PPV and NPV for malignancy have been shown in the previous studies . This fact should be kept in mind whenever a more radical surgery is contemplated in the face of a preoperative diagnosis of malignancy per‐FNAC and emphasis should be given to clinical findings at presentation; clinical suspicion should guide the surgeon even if FNAC is not in concordance.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 77%

Fine‐needle aspiration cytology for parotid lesions, can we avoid surgery?

Shkedy

Alkan

Mizrachi

et al. 2017

Clinical Otolaryngology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 77%

Fine‐needle aspiration cytology for parotid lesions, can we avoid surgery?

Shkedy

Alkan

Mizrachi

et al. 2017

Clinical Otolaryngology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The use of FNA in the investigation of salivary gland lesion is a long‐standing first approach in the diagnostic work up. Over the years, multiple published studies have supported the accuracy of FNA in identifying benign and malignant pathologies, reporting sensitivities and specificities ranges from 85% to 98% . However, due to the complexity and histological overlap within these lesions, subtyping can prove difficult .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A retrospective comparison of salivary gland fine needle aspiration reporting with the Milan system for reporting salivary gland cytology

Mullen

Gibbons

2020

Cytopathology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Fine needle aspiration (FNA) is a routine sampling method in the diagnostic work up of salivary gland lesions. Despite universal use, no standardised classification existed for the cytopathological reporting of such entities until recently. The Milan System for Reporting Salivary Gland Cytopathology (MSRSGC) aims to standardise the reporting of these lesions, offering risk of malignancy rates and clinical management recommendations. Methods: We retrospectively applied MSRSGC to cases reported over a 5-year period. Salivary FNA specimens were reclassified according to the MSRSGC as (I) nondiagnostic, (II) non-neoplastic, (III) atypia of undetermined significance (AUS), (IV) benign neoplasm and salivary gland neoplasm of uncertain malignant potential, (V) suspicious for malignancy, and (VI) malignant. Cases with surgical resections were documented and risk of malignancy calculated for each group, where possible. We compared our outcomes with similar studies performed since publication of the Milan criteria.Results: In total, 192 specimens were reassigned as non-diagnostic (n = 30), nonneoplastic (n = 31), AUS (n = 1), benign neoplasm (n = 97) and salivary gland neoplasm of uncertain malignant potential (n = 4), suspicious for malignancy (n = 3), and malignant (n = 26). There were 73 surgical resections. Our calculated risk of malignancy was within the proposed MSRSGC rates for the non-diagnostic, benign neoplasm and malignant groups. One AUS case did not undergo surgery. Benign and malignant sensitivities and specificities for the original reporting categories were 88.24% and 95.72%, and 100% and 95.45% for the MSRSGC, respectively. Conclusion: Salivary gland FNA has high diagnostic accuracy and the MSRSGC offers standardised reporting and assistance in the stratification of cases. This may improve communication between pathologists and clinicians with improved outcomes for patients. K E Y W O R D S cytopathology, fine needle aspirate, Milan system, salivary gland | 209 MULLEN aNd GIBBONS How to cite this article: Mullen D, Gibbons D. A retrospective comparison of salivary gland fine needle aspiration reporting with the Milan system for reporting salivary gland cytology. Cytopathology.2020;31:208-214. https://doi.

show abstract

“…Inadequacy is an important limitation of salivary gland FNA and ranges from 3% to 28.2% . Rapid on‐site evaluation (ROSE) is a service that cytopathologists provide primarily to check the adequacy of FNA specimens and decide whether the additional passes are needed for ancillary studies and to increase the diagnostic yield.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%