Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T02:49:50.806Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How good are we at fine needle aspiration cytology?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 April 2010

S Carr ,
V Visvanathan ,
T Hossain ,
S Uppal ,
P Chengot  and
C J Woodhead
S Carr*
Affiliation:
ENT Department, Leeds General Infirmary, UK
V Visvanathan
Affiliation:
ENT Department, Leeds General Infirmary, UK
T Hossain
Affiliation:
ENT Department, Leeds General Infirmary, UK
S Uppal
Affiliation:
ENT Department, Leeds General Infirmary, UK
P Chengot
Affiliation:
ENT Department, Leeds General Infirmary, UK
C J Woodhead
Affiliation:
ENT Department, Leeds General Infirmary, UK
*
Address for correspondence: Mr Simon Carr, ENT Department, Leeds General Infirmary, Great George Street, Leeds LS1 3EX, UK. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives:

To determine the accuracy of fine needle aspiration cytology conducted within a standard ENT out-patients service (rather than a one-stop neck lump clinic), and also to assess the value of ultrasound guidance during fine needle aspiration cytology.

Design:

Retrospective study of all patients undergoing fine needle aspiration cytology of a neck lump, from 2005 to 2008 in Leeds teaching hospitals.

Main outcome measures:

Accuracy of fine needle aspiration cytology, compared with the corresponding histology report of the original surgical specimen, and non-diagnostic fine needle aspiration cytology rates with and without ultrasound.

Results:

Fine needle aspiration cytology yielded the following respective sensitivity, specificity and accuracy rates: 85, 91 and 87 per cent for lymph nodes; 80, 93 and 89 for salivary glands; and 52, 80 and 69 for thyroid. The proportion of non-diagnostic procedures was 28 per cent, both with and without ultrasound guidance.

Conclusion:

Cytologist-led fine needle aspiration cytology would have reduced the time to diagnosis and the number of clinic visits per patient. Fine needle aspiration cytology was accurate for predicting malignancy in salivary gland and lymph node lesions, and for diagnosing lymph node pathology. Study results did not support the use of ultrasound guidance during fine needle aspiration cytology.

Keywords

CytologyThyroid GlandSalivary GlandsLymph NodesUltrasonography
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 124 , Issue 7 , July 2010 , pp. 765 - 766
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Presented as a poster at the British Academic Conference of Otolaryngologists, 8–10 July 2009, Liverpool, UK.

References

1National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guidance on Cancer Services: Improving Outcomes in Head and Neck Cancers. London: 2004Google Scholar
2Sadr, A, Anand, P, Gruber, E, Courtney, D. ‘One-stop’ head and neck clinic: does it make a difference? Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2007;137:221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3Kishore, A, Stewart, CJ, McGarry, GW, MacKenzie, K. One-stop neck lump clinic: phase 2 of audit. How are we doing? Clin Otolaryngol 2001;26:495–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4Howlett, DC, Harper, B, Quante, M, Berresford, A, Morley, M, Grant, J et al. Diagnostic adequacy and accuracy of fine needle aspiration cytology in neck lump assessment: results from a regional cancer network over a one year period. J Laryngol Otol 2007;121:571–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5Robinson, IA, Cozens, NJ. Does a joint ultrasound-guided cytology clinic optomize the cytological evaluation of head and neck masses? Clin Radiol 1999;54:312–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6Addams-Williams, J, Watkins, D, Owen, S, Williams, N, Fielder, C. Non-thyroid neck lumps: appraisal of the role of fine needle aspiration cytology. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2009;266:411–15CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed