From the Pathology Unit, Department of Mental and Physical Health and Preventive Medicine (Drs Cozzolino, Ronchi, Montella, Zito Marino, and Franco), the Thoracic Surgery Unit, Department of Cardiac, Thoracic and Respiratory Sciences (Drs Messina, Vicidomini, and Santini), the Medical Oncology Unit, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine "F. Magrassi-A. Lanzara" (Dr Morgillo), the Biotechnology, Medical Histology, and Molecular Biology Unit, Department of Experimental Medicine (Dr Tirino), the Department of Precision Medicine (Dr Grimaldi), and the Department of Radiology (Cappabianca), Università della Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli," Naples, Italy.
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2020 Mar;144(3):361-369. doi: 10.5858/arpa.2018-0346-OA. Epub 2019 Jul 22.
CONTEXT.—: Fine-needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) of pulmonary nodules is usually guided by computed tomography (CT), whereas ultrasonography (US) is generally considered not applicable for such purposes.
OBJECTIVE.—: To evaluate the clinical applicability and diagnostic utility of US-guided transthoracic FNAC of peripheral pulmonary nodules.
DESIGN.—: Ultrasonography-guided transthoracic FNAC was obtained from 40 selected patients with peripheral, subpleural, and paravertebral pulmonary nodules. Air-dried and Diff-Quik-stained smears were used for rapid on-site evaluation; additional smears were alcohol fixed for Papanicolaou staining. Cell blocks were set up for immunocytochemical and molecular studies; in 2 cases, a flow cytometry evaluation was also performed. The series was compared to 40 CT-guided pulmonary FNAC samples from patients with pleural, peripheral, and paravertebral pulmonary nodules, to evaluate differences in terms of diagnostic rate, time of execution, safety, and cost.
RESULTS.—: The US-guided FNAC samples had results that were adequate and representative in 95% of cases. No significant differences were observed between the 2 groups in terms of diagnostic rate, number of passes, and cellularity of both smears and cell blocks. The mean time needed for the execution of US-guided FNAC was 13.1 minutes, whereas the mean time for CT-guided FNAC was 23.6 minutes. Thus, US-guided FNAC was significantly more rapid than CT-guided pulmonary FNAC. Because pneumothorax occurred in 1 individual who underwent US-guided FNAC and in 9 who underwent CT-guided FNAC, we might conclude that US-guided FNAC is a significantly safer procedure. Finally, comparing the costs of both procedures, US-guided FNAC is less expensive.
CONCLUSIONS.—: Our experience showed an elevated clinical applicability and diagnostic utility of US-guided transthoracic FNAC for selected pulmonary nodules.
肺结节的细针抽吸细胞学(FNAC)通常由计算机断层扫描(CT)引导,而超声检查(US)通常被认为不适用于此类目的。
评估超声引导下经胸肺外周结节 FNAC 的临床适用性和诊断效用。
对 40 例选择的肺外周、胸膜下和椎旁肺结节患者进行超声引导下经胸 FNAC。使用空气干燥和 Diff-Quik 染色涂片进行快速现场评估;额外的涂片用酒精固定进行巴氏染色。建立细胞块进行免疫细胞化学和分子研究;在 2 例中还进行了流式细胞术评估。将该系列与 40 例来自胸膜、外周和椎旁肺结节的 CT 引导肺 FNAC 样本进行比较,以评估在诊断率、执行时间、安全性和成本方面的差异。
US 引导的 FNAC 样本中有 95%的结果是足够和有代表性的。在诊断率、通过次数以及涂片和细胞块的细胞数量方面,两组之间没有观察到显著差异。执行 US 引导 FNAC 所需的平均时间为 13.1 分钟,而 CT 引导 FNAC 的平均时间为 23.6 分钟。因此,US 引导 FNAC 明显快于 CT 引导肺 FNAC。由于在接受 US 引导 FNAC 的 1 名患者和接受 CT 引导 FNAC 的 9 名患者中发生了气胸,我们可以得出结论,US 引导 FNAC 是一种更安全的程序。最后,比较两种程序的成本,US 引导 FNAC 更便宜。
我们的经验表明,超声引导下经胸 FNAC 对选定的肺结节具有更高的临床适用性和诊断效用。