• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Endoscopy International Open >Diagnostic yield and agreement on fine-needle specimens from solid pancreatic lesionsspan class='sc': /spancomparing the smear technique to liquid-based cytology
【24h】

Diagnostic yield and agreement on fine-needle specimens from solid pancreatic lesionsspan class='sc': /spancomparing the smear technique to liquid-based cytology

机译：从固体胰腺病变的细针样品诊断产量和协议<跨度=“SC”>：将涂片技术与基于液体的细胞学进行比较

获取原文
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Background and study aims?The traditional “smear technique” for processing and assessing endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is sensitive to artifacts. Processing and evaluation of specimens collected in a liquid medium, liquid-based cytology (LBC) may be a solution. We compared the diagnostic value of EUS-FNA smears to LBC in pancreatic solid lesions in the absence of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE). Patients and methods?Consecutive patients who required EUS-FNA of a solid pancreatic lesion were included in seven hospitals in the Netherlands and followed for at least 12 months. Specimens from the first pass were split into two smears and a vial for LBC (using ThinPrep and/or Cell block). Smear and LBC were compared in terms of diagnostic accuracy for malignancy, sample quality, and diagnostic agreement between three cytopathologists. Results?Diagnostic accuracy for malignancy was higher for LBC (82?% (58/71)) than for smear (66?% (47/71), P?=?0.04), but did not differ when smears were compared to ThinPrep (71?% (30/42), P?=?0.56) or Cell block (62?% (39/63), P?=?0.61) individually. Artifacts were less often present in ThinPrep (57?% (24/42), P?=?0.02) or Cell block samples (40?% (25/63), P??0.001) than smears (76?% (54/71)). Agreement on malignancy was equally good for smears and LBC (??=?0.71 versus ??=?0.70, P?=?0.98), but lower for ThinPrep (??=?0.26, P?=?0.01) than smears. Conclusion?After a single pass, LBC provides higher diagnostic accuracy than the conventional smear technique for EUS-FNA of solid pancreatic lesions in the absence of ROSE. Therefore, LBC, may be an alternative to the conventional smear technique, especially in centers lacking ROSE. sup*/sup These authors contributed equally.
机译：背景和研究旨在？用于加工和评估内窥镜超声引导的细针抽吸（EUS-FNA）的传统“涂抹技术”对伪影敏感。在液体培养基中收集的样本的处理和评估，液体基细胞学（LBC）可以是溶液。在没有快速现场评价（玫瑰）的情况下，将EUS-FNA涂抹于胰腺固体病变中的EUS-FNA污迹的诊断值进行比较。患者和方法？连续患者在荷兰的七家医院中包含固体胰腺病变的EUS-FNA，并随访至少12个月。来自第一次通过的标本分为两种涂片物和用于LBC的小瓶（使用薄雾和/或细胞嵌段）。在诊断准确性方面比较涂片和LBC的恶性肿瘤，样品质量和三个细胞病变诊断协议。结果？LBC的恶性肿瘤诊断准确性更高（82？％（58/71））比涂抹（66？％（47/71），p？= 0.04），但在涂抹与薄雾比较时没有差异（71？％（30/42），p？= 0.56）或细胞嵌段（62〜69/63），单独进行p？= 0.61）。薄膜（57〜42/42），p？= 0.02）或细胞嵌段样品（40μm（25/63），p≤≤0.001）的伪影，而不是涂片（76Ω％（ 54/71））。对恶性肿瘤的协议同样适用于涂片和LBC（?? = 0.71与Δ0.70，P？=？0.98），但薄雾（Δθ= 0.26，p？0.01）比涂抹更低。结论？在单次通过后，LBC提供较高的诊断准确性，而不是玫瑰的固体胰腺病变的EUS-FNA的常规涂片技术。因此，LBC可能是传统涂片技术的替代方案，尤其是缺乏玫瑰的中心。 * 这些作者平均贡献。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号