| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
Full paper |
1Department of Radiology, Churchill Hospital, Old Road, Headington, Oxford OX3 7LJ and 2Department of Cytopathology, John Radcliffe Hospital, Headley Way, Headington, Oxford, UK
Correspondence: Dr F V Gleeson
| Abstract |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| Introduction |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| Materials and methods |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Technique
A standard syringe suction FNAB technique was performed using 22 G spinal needles. Fixed and unfixed slide preparations and needle washings were obtained. Sample appearances were graded on a five-point scale with 1 indicating apparent haemorrhage with no particulate material, 5 indicating fragments of solid tissue with no haemorrhagic component and 24 used to grade intermediate sample qualities. All gradings were performed at the time of procedure by the same radiologist. All samples were then processed and reported by the cytology department in the normal way, blinded to the radiologists macroscopic score.
In cases where the fine needle aspirate was non-diagnostic, reference was made to any histological diagnosis obtained following contemporaneous imaging guided core biopsy or subsequent surgical open biopsy.
| Results |
|---|
|
|
|---|
FNAB was non-diagnostic in seven patients. Two of these patients have been excluded from analysis; one was found to have tuberculosis at surgical biopsy while further investigation of the aetiology of a small pulmonary mass was prevented in the second patient by significant cardiac comorbidity. This nodule (<2 cm) remains of indeterminate aetiology on radiological criteria at 6 months. Both patients excluded from analysis had macroscopic sample grades of 3.
A positive result by FNAB was obtained in 38 of the 43 patients analyzed (sensitivity 88.4%). The cytological diagnoses are shown in Table 1
. A positive result by FNAB pass was obtained in 66 of 79 passes (sensitivity 83.5%).
|
The final diagnoses in the 5 patients (11.6%) with a non-diagnostic FNAB were bronchioloalveolar carcinomas in two patients, squamous cell carcinoma in one patient, adenocarcinoma in one patient and benign pneumocytoma in one patient.
Analysis of macroscopic grading per biopsy pass is shown in Table 2
. The positivity rate increases with macroscopic grade from 50% (samples graded 1) to 100% (samples graded 5). Grouping non-particulate predominately haemorrhagic samples, grades 1 and 2, and non-haemorrhagic particulate samples, grades 3, 4 and 5, demonstrates a statistically significant difference in diagnostic yield (p<0.001).
|
| Discussion |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Cytologists are not routinely present at the time of biopsy in our institution, and provision of this service has considerable resource implications. Other authors have commented that, in the absence of initial microscopic review, they use their own macroscopic assessment of sample quality to determine the need for a further pass [2]. In practice this is how most radiologists probably operate, but to our knowledge there is no data on the reliability of this technique.
In our small study there was a general trend of increasing diagnostic utility with increasing sample grade. Of interest is the finding that a cytological diagnosis of malignancy was possible in 50% of cases when the sample was thought tobe blood only. The small number of samples graded 1 and 5 prevented direct comparison between individual gradings. However, a statistically significant difference did exist between the two lowest, non-particulate grades and the other three particulate grades. This may provide a basis for the practice of deciding which cases require a further needle pass and which do not, on the basis of the gross appearance of the sample. The non-particulate samples have a 59% chance of providing a diagnosis compared with a 93% chance available with the presence of more tissue fragments. A direct comparison of the added value of a cytopathologist or technician in attendance in comparison with a visual grading of the slide by the radiologist may be warranted.
This small study suggests that the radiologist performing the biopsy may be able to estimate the diagnostic yield of a biopsy specimen. This is of importance when evaluating the need for a second or third pass, with the attendant risks.
Received for publication June 11, 2001. Revision received September 11, 2001. Accepted for publication September 18, 2001.
| References |
|---|
|
|
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
F G Mayall, A Cormack, K McAnulty, and A Darlington The gross appearances of fine needle aspiration cytology samples J. Clin. Pathol., January 1, 2009; 62(1): 57 - 59. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A Manhire, M Charig, C Clelland, F Gleeson, R Miller, H Moss, K Pointon, C Richardson, and E Sawicka Guidelines for radiologically guided lung biopsy Thorax, November 1, 2003; 58(11): 920 - 936. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| BJR | DMFR | IMAGING | ALL BIR JOURNALS |