Department of Pathology, AmeriPath Indiana, Indianapolis, IN 46219-1739, USA.
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2013 Aug;137(8):1039-42. doi: 10.5858/arpa.2012-0231-CP.
The usefulness of spontaneous nipple discharge analysis is controversial. Nipple discharge preparations are rare in clinical practice and malignant cases are exceptional. The College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Nongynecologic Cytopathology has included nipple discharge preparations since its inception.
To evaluate participant responses in the College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Nongynecologic Cytopathology to assess the accuracy of cytologic interpretation of nipple discharge preparation.
General diagnostic category (benign, suspicious, malignant), participant type (pathologist, cytotechnologist), stain (Papanicolaou, modified Giemsa), and program year (2005-2009) were analyzed using χ(2) and a nonlinear mixed model for slide factor correlation structure.
Of 2506 responses, 1280 (51%) were malignant, 171 (7%) were papillary, and 1055 (42%) were benign. There were 222 discordant general category responses with a false-positive/suspicious rate of 12.8% and a false-negative rate of 3.4%. The most common false-negative diagnosis was mastitis/abscess (125 of 1272 responses; 9.8%). The most common false-positive response was papillary lesion (26 of 457 responses; 5.7%). There were no differences between stains or years. Cytotechnologists performed better than pathologists; pathologists had a higher false-negative rate than cytotechnologists (15.3% versus 7.9%, P < .001).
There is poor accuracy in evaluating nipple discharge preparation in the College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Nongynecologic Cytopathology. If the findings in the program parallel clinical practice, nipple discharge preparations may adversely impact patient care. A benign nipple discharge cytologic diagnosis does not exclude malignancy, and the false-positive/suspicious rate requires confirmation of a malignant nipple discharge prior to definitive patient management.
自发性乳头溢液分析的实用性存在争议。乳头溢液标本在临床实践中很少见,恶性病例更是罕见。美国病理学家学会(College of American Pathologists,简称 CAP)非妇科细胞学检验室间质量评价计划自成立以来就包含了乳头溢液标本。
评估 CAP 非妇科细胞学检验室间质量评价计划中参与者对乳头溢液标本细胞学解读的准确性。
采用 χ²检验和非线性混合模型分析总诊断类别(良性、可疑、恶性)、参与者类型(病理学家、细胞技术专家)、染色(巴氏染色、改良吉姆萨染色)和方案年份(2005-2009 年),采用 slide 因素相关结构的非线性混合模型进行分析。
在 2506 例应答中,1280 例(51%)为恶性,171 例(7%)为乳头状,1055 例(42%)为良性。有 222 例总诊断类别不一致的应答,假阳性/可疑率为 12.8%,假阴性率为 3.4%。最常见的假阴性诊断是乳腺炎/脓肿(1272 例应答中有 125 例;9.8%)。最常见的假阳性诊断是乳头状病变(457 例应答中有 26 例;5.7%)。染色和年份之间没有差异。细胞技术专家的表现优于病理学家;病理学家的假阴性率高于细胞技术专家(15.3%比 7.9%,P<.001)。
在 CAP 非妇科细胞学检验室间质量评价计划中,评估乳头溢液标本的准确性较差。如果该计划中的结果与临床实践相符,那么乳头溢液标本可能会对患者的治疗产生不利影响。良性乳头溢液细胞学诊断并不能排除恶性肿瘤,假阳性/可疑率需要在进行明确的患者管理之前,对恶性乳头溢液进行确认。