BACKGROUND Smear cytology(SC)using endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration(EUS-FNA)is the established and traditional choice for diagnosing pancreatic lesions.Liquid-based cytology(LBC)is a novel alternati...BACKGROUND Smear cytology(SC)using endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration(EUS-FNA)is the established and traditional choice for diagnosing pancreatic lesions.Liquid-based cytology(LBC)is a novel alternative cytological method,however,the comparative diagnostic efficacy of LBC remains inconclusive.AIM To examine the diagnostic efficacy of LBC and SC for pancreatic specimens obtained through EUS-FNA via a systematic review and meta-analysis.METHODS A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed,EMBASE,the Cochrane Library,and Web of Science.The numbers of true positives,false positives,true negatives,and false negatives for each cytological test(LBC and CS)were extracted from the included studies.The pooled sensitivity and specificity and the area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve(AUC)were calculated,and the AUC was compared by Tukey's multiple comparisons test.The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies II tool.RESULTS A total of 1656 patients in eight studies were included.The pooled sensitivity and specificity and the AUC for LBC were 0.76(95%CI:0.72-0.79),1.00(95%CI:0.98-1.00),and 0.9174,respectively,for diagnosing pancreatic lesions.The pooled estimates for SC were as follows:Sensitivity,0.68(95%CI:0.64-0.71);specificity,0.99(95%CI:0.96-100.00);and AUC,0.9714.Similarly,the corresponding values for LBC combined with SC were 0.87(95%CI:0.84-0.90),0.99(95%CI:0.96-1.00),and 0.9894.Tukey’s multiple comparisons test was used to compare the sensitivities and AUCs of the three diagnostic methods;statistically significant differences were found between the three methods,and LBC combined with SC was superior to both LBC(P<0.05)and SC(P<0.05).The pooled sensitivity and AUC did not change significantly in the sensitivity analysis.CONCLUSION LBC may be sensitive than SC in the cytological diagnosis of pancreatic lesions,however,the superior diagnostic performance of their combination emphasizes their integrated usage in the clinical evaluation of pancreatic lesions.展开更多
BACKGROUND Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration(EUS-FNA)is a safe and accurate technique to confirm the diagnosis of pancreatic cancers.Recently,numerous studies comparing the diagnostic efficacy o...BACKGROUND Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration(EUS-FNA)is a safe and accurate technique to confirm the diagnosis of pancreatic cancers.Recently,numerous studies comparing the diagnostic efficacy of smear cytology(SC)and liquid-based cytology(LBC)for pancreatic lesions yielded mixed results.AIM To compare and identify the better cytology method for EUS-FNA in pancreatic lesions.METHODS A comprehensive search of PubMed,Embase,and Cochrane was undertaken through July 18,2020.The primary endpoint was diagnostic accuracy(sensitivity and specificity).Secondary outcomes included sample adequacy and post procedure complications.In addition,factors affecting diagnostic efficacy were discussed.RESULTS Data on a total of 1121 comparisons from 10 studies met the inclusion criteria.Pooled rates of sensitivity for SC and LBC were 78%(67%-87%)vs 75%(67%-81%),respectively.In any case,both SC and LBC exhibited a high specificity close to 100%.Inadequate samples more often appeared in LBC compared with SC.However,the LBC samples exhibited a better visual field than SC.Very few post procedure complications were observed.CONCLUSION Our data suggested that for EUS-FNA in pancreatic lesions(particularly solid lesions),SC with Rapid On-Site Evaluation represents a superior diagnostic technique.If Rapid On-Site Evaluation is unavailable,LBC may replace smears.The diagnostic accuracy of LBC depends on different LBC techniques.展开更多
<b><span>Background:</span></b><span> Liquid-based cytology (LBC) is a method of manufacturing cyto-diagnostic specimens. Improved accuracy is expected from standardizing specim...<b><span>Background:</span></b><span> Liquid-based cytology (LBC) is a method of manufacturing cyto-diagnostic specimens. Improved accuracy is expected from standardizing specimen production and use of this method is rapidly spreading in oral cytology. On the other hand, LBC reportedly requires training to show peculiar cell findings compared to those of conventional smear cytology (CVC). Few studies have compared detailed cell findings for oral CVC and LBC.</span><span> </span><b><span>Objec</span></b><b><span>tives:</span></b><span> The aim of this study was to compare cytological findings between CVC </span><span>and LBC using cytomorphological image analysis.</span><span> </span><b><span>Materials and Methods:</span></b><span> Cytological specimens were collected from 20 patients (negative for squamous neoplasia in 10, dysplasia in 5, squamous cell carcinoma in 5) and 5 controls of the tongue between January 2017 and December 2018. Two different preparation techniques were investigated cytomorphologically for CVC and LBC (BD Cytorich</span><sup><span style="vertical-align:super;">TM</span></sup><span>).</span><span> </span><b><span>Results:</span></b><span> LBC showed significantly higher cell numbers tha</span><span>n CVC for all lesions. LBC-to-CVC ratio ranged from 9.52 (hyp</span><span>erkeratosis) to 1.87 (deep cells in oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC)). Nuclear area of </span><span>normal, hyperkeratosis, and inflammation were significantly higher in LBC tha</span><span>n those of CVC. Hyperchromasia was significantly more frequent with </span><span>CVC than with LBC for hyperkeratosis, inflammation, dysplasia and OSCC. There was no significant difference in circularity between CVC and LBC </span><span>among all lesions. </span><b><span>Conclusion:</span></b><span> Only one cytomorphological disadvantage was </span><span>se</span><span>en with LBC, in the form of decreased hyperchromasia. Further </span><span>clarification of the advantages and disadvantages of LBC is needed, including management of precision and screening practices.展开更多
Background: The detection of vaginal intraepithelial neoplasia (VAIN) in cervical samples is not a common finding. Therefore, we aimed to report VAINs detected in liquid-based cytology (LBC) from women examined at Hos...Background: The detection of vaginal intraepithelial neoplasia (VAIN) in cervical samples is not a common finding. Therefore, we aimed to report VAINs detected in liquid-based cytology (LBC) from women examined at Hospital das Clínicas of Faculty of Medicine, Sao Paulo State University. Materials and Methods: We evaluated LBC samples from women referred to gynecology examination for different reasons (previous abnormal PapTest, follow up of treated cervical lesion, ecc) and women examined for regular screening proposals, and compared with biopsy diagnoses, including the controversial diagnoses of vaginal intraepithelial neoplasia (VAIN). Results: From 1866 patients, 1423 (76.3%) cases were negative and 443 (23.7%) were positive for any cellular alteration. Age of patients ranged from 12 to 86 years. We detected 25 histologically confirmed VAIN (1.3% p = 0.0002 by Fisher’s exact test IC 95% 0.0090 - 0.0198) and 1.1% VAIN (p = 0.0031 by Fisher’s exact test IC 95% 0.0077 - 0.0179). Conclusion: The identification of VAIN in routine is feasible;the professionals involved with cytological examination should be aware of these lesions in Pap test samples.展开更多
基金the Natural Science Foundation of Zhejiang Province,No.LQ20H160061Medical Health Science and Technology Project of Zhejiang Provincial Health Commission,No.2018255969.
文摘BACKGROUND Smear cytology(SC)using endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration(EUS-FNA)is the established and traditional choice for diagnosing pancreatic lesions.Liquid-based cytology(LBC)is a novel alternative cytological method,however,the comparative diagnostic efficacy of LBC remains inconclusive.AIM To examine the diagnostic efficacy of LBC and SC for pancreatic specimens obtained through EUS-FNA via a systematic review and meta-analysis.METHODS A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed,EMBASE,the Cochrane Library,and Web of Science.The numbers of true positives,false positives,true negatives,and false negatives for each cytological test(LBC and CS)were extracted from the included studies.The pooled sensitivity and specificity and the area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve(AUC)were calculated,and the AUC was compared by Tukey's multiple comparisons test.The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies II tool.RESULTS A total of 1656 patients in eight studies were included.The pooled sensitivity and specificity and the AUC for LBC were 0.76(95%CI:0.72-0.79),1.00(95%CI:0.98-1.00),and 0.9174,respectively,for diagnosing pancreatic lesions.The pooled estimates for SC were as follows:Sensitivity,0.68(95%CI:0.64-0.71);specificity,0.99(95%CI:0.96-100.00);and AUC,0.9714.Similarly,the corresponding values for LBC combined with SC were 0.87(95%CI:0.84-0.90),0.99(95%CI:0.96-1.00),and 0.9894.Tukey’s multiple comparisons test was used to compare the sensitivities and AUCs of the three diagnostic methods;statistically significant differences were found between the three methods,and LBC combined with SC was superior to both LBC(P<0.05)and SC(P<0.05).The pooled sensitivity and AUC did not change significantly in the sensitivity analysis.CONCLUSION LBC may be sensitive than SC in the cytological diagnosis of pancreatic lesions,however,the superior diagnostic performance of their combination emphasizes their integrated usage in the clinical evaluation of pancreatic lesions.
文摘BACKGROUND Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration(EUS-FNA)is a safe and accurate technique to confirm the diagnosis of pancreatic cancers.Recently,numerous studies comparing the diagnostic efficacy of smear cytology(SC)and liquid-based cytology(LBC)for pancreatic lesions yielded mixed results.AIM To compare and identify the better cytology method for EUS-FNA in pancreatic lesions.METHODS A comprehensive search of PubMed,Embase,and Cochrane was undertaken through July 18,2020.The primary endpoint was diagnostic accuracy(sensitivity and specificity).Secondary outcomes included sample adequacy and post procedure complications.In addition,factors affecting diagnostic efficacy were discussed.RESULTS Data on a total of 1121 comparisons from 10 studies met the inclusion criteria.Pooled rates of sensitivity for SC and LBC were 78%(67%-87%)vs 75%(67%-81%),respectively.In any case,both SC and LBC exhibited a high specificity close to 100%.Inadequate samples more often appeared in LBC compared with SC.However,the LBC samples exhibited a better visual field than SC.Very few post procedure complications were observed.CONCLUSION Our data suggested that for EUS-FNA in pancreatic lesions(particularly solid lesions),SC with Rapid On-Site Evaluation represents a superior diagnostic technique.If Rapid On-Site Evaluation is unavailable,LBC may replace smears.The diagnostic accuracy of LBC depends on different LBC techniques.
文摘<b><span>Background:</span></b><span> Liquid-based cytology (LBC) is a method of manufacturing cyto-diagnostic specimens. Improved accuracy is expected from standardizing specimen production and use of this method is rapidly spreading in oral cytology. On the other hand, LBC reportedly requires training to show peculiar cell findings compared to those of conventional smear cytology (CVC). Few studies have compared detailed cell findings for oral CVC and LBC.</span><span> </span><b><span>Objec</span></b><b><span>tives:</span></b><span> The aim of this study was to compare cytological findings between CVC </span><span>and LBC using cytomorphological image analysis.</span><span> </span><b><span>Materials and Methods:</span></b><span> Cytological specimens were collected from 20 patients (negative for squamous neoplasia in 10, dysplasia in 5, squamous cell carcinoma in 5) and 5 controls of the tongue between January 2017 and December 2018. Two different preparation techniques were investigated cytomorphologically for CVC and LBC (BD Cytorich</span><sup><span style="vertical-align:super;">TM</span></sup><span>).</span><span> </span><b><span>Results:</span></b><span> LBC showed significantly higher cell numbers tha</span><span>n CVC for all lesions. LBC-to-CVC ratio ranged from 9.52 (hyp</span><span>erkeratosis) to 1.87 (deep cells in oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC)). Nuclear area of </span><span>normal, hyperkeratosis, and inflammation were significantly higher in LBC tha</span><span>n those of CVC. Hyperchromasia was significantly more frequent with </span><span>CVC than with LBC for hyperkeratosis, inflammation, dysplasia and OSCC. There was no significant difference in circularity between CVC and LBC </span><span>among all lesions. </span><b><span>Conclusion:</span></b><span> Only one cytomorphological disadvantage was </span><span>se</span><span>en with LBC, in the form of decreased hyperchromasia. Further </span><span>clarification of the advantages and disadvantages of LBC is needed, including management of precision and screening practices.
文摘Background: The detection of vaginal intraepithelial neoplasia (VAIN) in cervical samples is not a common finding. Therefore, we aimed to report VAINs detected in liquid-based cytology (LBC) from women examined at Hospital das Clínicas of Faculty of Medicine, Sao Paulo State University. Materials and Methods: We evaluated LBC samples from women referred to gynecology examination for different reasons (previous abnormal PapTest, follow up of treated cervical lesion, ecc) and women examined for regular screening proposals, and compared with biopsy diagnoses, including the controversial diagnoses of vaginal intraepithelial neoplasia (VAIN). Results: From 1866 patients, 1423 (76.3%) cases were negative and 443 (23.7%) were positive for any cellular alteration. Age of patients ranged from 12 to 86 years. We detected 25 histologically confirmed VAIN (1.3% p = 0.0002 by Fisher’s exact test IC 95% 0.0090 - 0.0198) and 1.1% VAIN (p = 0.0031 by Fisher’s exact test IC 95% 0.0077 - 0.0179). Conclusion: The identification of VAIN in routine is feasible;the professionals involved with cytological examination should be aware of these lesions in Pap test samples.
