cytohistologic disagreement were reviewed to assess the reasons for discrepancies. The sensitivity and specificity of EUS-FNA specimens were assessed using the Pearson chi-square test. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-five pancreatic FNA specimens were retrieved. The median patient age was 70 years (range, 25-93 years). Eleven specimens previously classified as negative and 3 previously classified as non-diagnostic were reclassified as neoplastic:other, as well as all specimens primarily classified as atypical or positive for neoplasm and half the specimens primarily classified as suspicious. All positive specimens remained within their same categories in the revised classification. Sixteen patients (10.3%) had surgical resection specimens available, and complete or partial agreement with FNA results was achieved in 13 of those surgical specimens (81.2%). Reasons for discrepancy comprised sampling errors in 5 specimens and an interpretation error in 1 specimen. Overall, sensitivity was 66.7%, specificity was 66.7%, the positive predictive value was 88.9%, and the negative predictive value was 33.3%. CONCLUSIONS: The application of the new proposed terminology for pancreaticobiliary cytology had a greater impact among specimens that were previously classified as atypical and suspicious. EUS-FNA of the pancreas is a highly accurate method, and its use, allied with the new proposed terminology, may ultimately contribute to better outcomes. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol) 2015;123:488-94.