Cargando…

Use of the term atypical cells in the reporting of ascitic fluid cytology: A caveat

BACKGROUND: Abdominal paracentesis is a routine diagnostic procedure for assessment of patients with recent onset or worsening of ascites. OBJECTIVES: The objective of the study is to (1) review clinically confirmed cases of malignancy with negative, atypical, and suspicious cytology reports and pro...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pai, Radha Ramachandra, Shenoy, Krithika Damodar, Minal, Jessica, Suresh, Pooja K., Chakraborti, Shrijeet, Lobo, Flora D.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6628729/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31367221
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/cytojournal.cytojournal_37_18
_version_ 1783435006602903552
author Pai, Radha Ramachandra
Shenoy, Krithika Damodar
Minal, Jessica
Suresh, Pooja K.
Chakraborti, Shrijeet
Lobo, Flora D.
author_facet Pai, Radha Ramachandra
Shenoy, Krithika Damodar
Minal, Jessica
Suresh, Pooja K.
Chakraborti, Shrijeet
Lobo, Flora D.
author_sort Pai, Radha Ramachandra
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Abdominal paracentesis is a routine diagnostic procedure for assessment of patients with recent onset or worsening of ascites. OBJECTIVES: The objective of the study is to (1) review clinically confirmed cases of malignancy with negative, atypical, and suspicious cytology reports and provide reasoning for discrepancies and (2) recalculate sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values after review. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Papanicolaou smears of ascitic fluid paracentesis samples received over one calendar year were reviewed retrospectively by an expert in cytopathology blinded to the final clinical and/or histopathological diagnoses. Cases with discrepancies after review were noted. Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values were calculated before and after review of slides. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 16. RESULTS: Malignant etiology was identified in 49/115 cases (42.6%) with female genital tract being the most common site of malignancy (22, 44.8%). The remaining 66 (57.4%) had a benign etiology with hepatic cirrhosis in 42 cases (63.6%). A review revealed discrepancies in five cases, three of which were earlier called negative for malignant cells (one case each of ovarian adenocarcinoma, cecal adenocarcinoma, and cholangiocarcinoma). Two cases of ovarian adenocarcinoma that were reported as atypical/reactive mesothelial hyperplasia showed malignant cells upon review. Sensitivity and specificity after review were 69.4% and 100%, respectively, with 100% positive predictive value. CONCLUSION: Being a minimally invasive procedure, abdominal paracentesis continues to be an important diagnostic tool in guiding patient management. A proper morphological assessment with adequate clinical information and correlation with other investigations can be used to arrive at a definitive diagnosis in most cases. The term “atypical” can be misleading and is often used for want of clinical information and is best avoided.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6628729
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-66287292019-07-31 Use of the term atypical cells in the reporting of ascitic fluid cytology: A caveat Pai, Radha Ramachandra Shenoy, Krithika Damodar Minal, Jessica Suresh, Pooja K. Chakraborti, Shrijeet Lobo, Flora D. Cytojournal Research Article BACKGROUND: Abdominal paracentesis is a routine diagnostic procedure for assessment of patients with recent onset or worsening of ascites. OBJECTIVES: The objective of the study is to (1) review clinically confirmed cases of malignancy with negative, atypical, and suspicious cytology reports and provide reasoning for discrepancies and (2) recalculate sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values after review. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Papanicolaou smears of ascitic fluid paracentesis samples received over one calendar year were reviewed retrospectively by an expert in cytopathology blinded to the final clinical and/or histopathological diagnoses. Cases with discrepancies after review were noted. Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values were calculated before and after review of slides. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 16. RESULTS: Malignant etiology was identified in 49/115 cases (42.6%) with female genital tract being the most common site of malignancy (22, 44.8%). The remaining 66 (57.4%) had a benign etiology with hepatic cirrhosis in 42 cases (63.6%). A review revealed discrepancies in five cases, three of which were earlier called negative for malignant cells (one case each of ovarian adenocarcinoma, cecal adenocarcinoma, and cholangiocarcinoma). Two cases of ovarian adenocarcinoma that were reported as atypical/reactive mesothelial hyperplasia showed malignant cells upon review. Sensitivity and specificity after review were 69.4% and 100%, respectively, with 100% positive predictive value. CONCLUSION: Being a minimally invasive procedure, abdominal paracentesis continues to be an important diagnostic tool in guiding patient management. A proper morphological assessment with adequate clinical information and correlation with other investigations can be used to arrive at a definitive diagnosis in most cases. The term “atypical” can be misleading and is often used for want of clinical information and is best avoided. Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2019-06-28 /pmc/articles/PMC6628729/ /pubmed/31367221 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/cytojournal.cytojournal_37_18 Text en Copyright: © 2019 Pai, et al.; Licensee Cytopathology Foundation Inc. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0 This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle Research Article
Pai, Radha Ramachandra
Shenoy, Krithika Damodar
Minal, Jessica
Suresh, Pooja K.
Chakraborti, Shrijeet
Lobo, Flora D.
Use of the term atypical cells in the reporting of ascitic fluid cytology: A caveat
title Use of the term atypical cells in the reporting of ascitic fluid cytology: A caveat
title_full Use of the term atypical cells in the reporting of ascitic fluid cytology: A caveat
title_fullStr Use of the term atypical cells in the reporting of ascitic fluid cytology: A caveat
title_full_unstemmed Use of the term atypical cells in the reporting of ascitic fluid cytology: A caveat
title_short Use of the term atypical cells in the reporting of ascitic fluid cytology: A caveat
title_sort use of the term atypical cells in the reporting of ascitic fluid cytology: a caveat
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6628729/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31367221
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/cytojournal.cytojournal_37_18
work_keys_str_mv AT pairadharamachandra useofthetermatypicalcellsinthereportingofasciticfluidcytologyacaveat
AT shenoykrithikadamodar useofthetermatypicalcellsinthereportingofasciticfluidcytologyacaveat
AT minaljessica useofthetermatypicalcellsinthereportingofasciticfluidcytologyacaveat
AT sureshpoojak useofthetermatypicalcellsinthereportingofasciticfluidcytologyacaveat
AT chakrabortishrijeet useofthetermatypicalcellsinthereportingofasciticfluidcytologyacaveat
AT loboflorad useofthetermatypicalcellsinthereportingofasciticfluidcytologyacaveat