Aydin Cevdet, Dellal Fatma Dilek, Tam Abbas Ali, Ogmen Berna, Kilicarslan Aydan, Topaloglu Oya, Ersoy Reyhan, Cakir Bekir
Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Faculty of Medicine, Yildirim Beyazit University, Ankara, Turkey.
Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Ataturk Training and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey.
Diagn Cytopathol. 2017 Oct;45(10):889-894. doi: 10.1002/dc.23793. Epub 2017 Aug 18.
We aimed to compare nonaspiration (NAS) and aspiration (AS) techniques in the evaluation of fine-needle cytology of lymph node (FNC-LN) in terms of diagnostic adequacy of cytologic material.
One hundred and twenty-three superficial cervical LNs in 75 patients who underwent NAS and AS-FNC-LN in the same visit were evaluated. Cytological results were categorized as diagnostic and nondiagnostic.
The rates of malignancy were 13.8% in AS versus 16.3% in NAS technique, whereas nondiagnostic cytology was detected in 43.1% and 25.2%, respectively (P = .549 and P < .01).
The diagnostic adequacy rate in NAS-FNC-LN was significantly higher than AS-FNC-LN. However, NAS technique seems to be more simple and comfortable. We suggest both NAS and AS-FNC-LN in cytologic evaluation of suspicious cervical LNs until the diagnostic accuracy is determined with prospective studies.
我们旨在比较非抽吸（NAS）和抽吸（AS）技术在评估淋巴结细针细胞学检查（FNC-LN）时细胞学材料的诊断充分性。
对75例在同一次就诊时接受NAS和AS-FNC-LN检查的患者的123个浅表颈部淋巴结进行评估。细胞学结果分为诊断性和非诊断性。
AS技术的恶性率为13.8%，NAS技术为16.3%，而非诊断性细胞学分别为43.1%和25.2%（P = 0.549和P < 0.01）。
NAS-FNC-LN的诊断充分率显著高于AS-FNC-LN。然而，NAS技术似乎更简单且更舒适。在通过前瞻性研究确定诊断准确性之前，我们建议在可疑颈部淋巴结的细胞学评估中同时使用NAS和AS-FNC-LN。
