Lee Jun Kyu, Choi E Ryoung, Jang Tae Hoon, Chung Yun Hee, Jang Kee-Taek, Park Sang-Mo, Lee Jong Kyun, Lee Kyu Taek, Lee Kwang Hyuck
Department of Internal Medicine, Dongguk University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Acta Cytol. 2011;55(5):401-7. doi: 10.1159/000330811. Epub 2011 Oct 8.
To compare results of liquid-based cytology (LBC) and the conventional smear method (SMEAR) when performing endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for lesions of suspected pancreatic malignancy without an on-site cytopathologist.
Fifty-eight patients were prospectively enrolled between July and December 2009. Aspirates obtained from the first needle pass were randomized either to SMEAR or LBC. Another sample from the second needle pass was allocated to the other method. The rest of the aspirates from the third or later needle passes were used for SMEAR. Diagnostic accuracy was compared and related factors were pursued.
Although both methods were 100% specific, LBC was inferior to SMEAR in terms of sensitivity, negative predictive value, and accuracy. However, LBC provided correct diagnoses in 2 out of 3 cases of false negatives for malignancy by SMEAR in which blood was highly contaminated. Although no factor was identified for LBC, low blood contamination and more than 3 needle passes were related with accurate diagnosis in SMEAR.
LBC was less accurate than SMEAR when performing pancreatic EUS-FNA without an on-site cytopathologist. However, LBC might serve as a good complement to SMEAR if blood contamination is profound.
比较在没有现场细胞病理学家的情况下,对疑似胰腺恶性病变进行内镜超声引导下细针穿刺抽吸(EUS-FNA)时,液基细胞学检查(LBC)和传统涂片法(SMEAR)的结果。
2009年7月至12月前瞻性纳入58例患者。首次穿刺获得的抽吸物随机分为涂片法或液基细胞学检查法。第二次穿刺的另一个样本分配到另一种方法。第三次或后续穿刺的其余抽吸物用于涂片法。比较诊断准确性并探究相关因素。
虽然两种方法的特异性均为100%,但在敏感性、阴性预测值和准确性方面,液基细胞学检查法不如涂片法。然而,在涂片法诊断为恶性肿瘤的3例假阴性病例中,有2例血液污染严重,液基细胞学检查法给出了正确诊断。虽然未发现与液基细胞学检查法相关的因素,但涂片法中血液污染低和穿刺次数超过3次与准确诊断有关。
在没有现场细胞病理学家的情况下进行胰腺EUS-FNA时,液基细胞学检查法不如涂片法准确。然而,如果血液污染严重,液基细胞学检查法可能是涂片法的良好补充。