Zakowski M F, Gatscha R M, Zaman M B
Department of Pathology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York 10021.
Acta Cytol. 1992 May-Jun;36(3):283-6.
Percutaneous fine needle aspiration (FNA) for cytologic examination is an accepted and reliable technique for diagnosing neoplasia. It is less useful, however, in excluding that diagnosis. We performed a retrospective analysis of a consecutive series of pulmonary FNA specimens at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center to determine the negative predictive value (NPV) of this technique in the setting of a large cancer hospital. Fifty-seven cases were studied. Six cases (10.5%) were initially diagnosed as negative but acellular and were not further analyzed, and another 6 were lost to follow-up; 24 cases (42.1%) were subsequently confirmed negative by tissue or clinical follow-up, and 21 of the cases (36.8%) were proven positive for malignancy by repeat aspiration, tissue diagnosis or clinical means. Of these 21 cases, 1 was misdiagnosed as negative, and review demonstrated malignant cells on the slide; 3 of the 21 cases should have been initially rejected as unsatisfactory, and 18 of the 21 contained material sufficient for a cytologic diagnosis but not representative of the lesion. On follow-up the false-negative cases showed primary adenocarcinoma, epidermoid carcinoma, lymphoma, metastatic breast carcinoma and metastatic sarcoma. Specific benign diagnoses were made on the initial cytologic preparation in three cases. No benign tumors were found. The NPV in our series was 53.3%, comparable to values in previous reports. The single largest factor contributing to false-negative diagnoses is sampling error, and we recommend repeat aspiration when no specific benign diagnosis is made. In addition, we suggest that the diagnoses of negative for malignant cells and insufficient for diagnosis or acellular be considered separate categories.
经皮细针穿刺抽吸术(FNA)用于细胞学检查是诊断肿瘤的一种公认且可靠的技术。然而,在排除该诊断方面其作用较小。我们对纪念斯隆 - 凯特琳癌症中心一系列连续的肺部FNA标本进行了回顾性分析,以确定该技术在大型癌症医院环境中的阴性预测值(NPV)。共研究了57例病例。6例(10.5%)最初诊断为阴性但无细胞成分,未作进一步分析,另有6例失访;24例(42.1%)随后经组织或临床随访证实为阴性,21例(36.8%)经再次抽吸、组织诊断或临床手段证实为恶性。在这21例中,1例被误诊为阴性,复查发现玻片上有恶性细胞;21例中有3例最初应被判定为不满意而拒收,21例中有一部分包含足以进行细胞学诊断但不具有病变代表性的材料。随访发现假阴性病例包括原发性腺癌、表皮样癌、淋巴瘤、转移性乳腺癌和转移性肉瘤。在最初的细胞学检查中有3例做出了特定的良性诊断。未发现良性肿瘤。我们系列研究中的NPV为53.3%,与之前报告中的值相当。导致假阴性诊断的最大单一因素是采样误差,我们建议在未做出特定良性诊断时进行再次抽吸。此外,我们建议将恶性细胞阴性诊断、诊断不足或无细胞诊断视为不同类别。