A reporting system for endometrial cytology: Cytomorphologic criteria-Implied risk of malignancy

2016 ◽  
Vol 44 (11) ◽  
pp. 888-901 ◽  
Author(s):  
Niki Margari ◽  
Abraham Pouliakis ◽  
Dionysios Anoinos ◽  
Emmanouil Terzakis ◽  
Nikolaos Koureas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Reporting System ◽  
Risk Of Malignancy ◽  
Endometrial Cytology

Evaluation of the benefit and use of the new terminology in endometrial cytology reporting system

2018 ◽  
Vol 46 (4) ◽  
pp. 314-319 ◽  
Author(s):  
Akiko Shinagawa ◽  
Tetsuji Kurokawa ◽  
Makoto Yamamoto ◽  
Toshimichi Onuma ◽  
Hideaki Tsuyoshi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Reporting System ◽  
Endometrial Cytology

scholarly journals Moving Toward a Systematic Approach for Reporting Salivary Gland Cytopathology: An Institutional Experience and Literature Review

2018 ◽  
Vol 143 (6) ◽  
pp. 664-669 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xunda Luo ◽  
Nirag Jhala ◽  
Jasvir S. Khurana ◽  
Christopher Fundakowski ◽  
Darshana N. Jhala ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Salivary Gland ◽  
Fine Needle Aspiration ◽  
Predictive Value ◽  
Reporting System ◽  
Collaborative Work ◽  
Benign Neoplasm ◽  
Needle Aspiration ◽  
Fine Needle ◽  
Tier System ◽  
Risk Of Malignancy

Context.— Despite the clinical utility of fine-needle aspiration for the diagnosis of salivary pathologies, salivary lesions remain one of the most challenging areas in cytopathology. This is partially because there is no consensus on how to report salivary gland cytopathology, which has resulted in inconsistent terminology among institutions and individual cytopathologists and in confusion in communication among cytopathologists and ordering providers. Objective.— To summarize our experience with an institutional salivary gland cytopathology reporting system, as an initiative to promote collaborative work toward a consensus on a reporting system. Design.— We developed an empirical 6-tier classification reporting system. Slides of 107 salivary gland fine-needle aspirations with subsequent histology slides were reviewed and reclassified using the 6-tier system. The performance of the cytology reporting system was evaluated with the histology diagnoses serving as the gold standard. Results.— Fine-needle aspiration diagnoses made based on the institutional 6-tier classification system were generally consistent with histology diagnoses for the disease spectrum reported in this study. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for diagnosing malignancies with the system were 86% (12 of 14), 93% (40 of 43), 80% (12 of 15), and 95% (40 of 42), respectively. The risk of malignancy increased from 0% (0 of 13) for negative for neoplasm to 7% (2 of 29) for benign neoplasm, 67% (2 of 3) for suspicious for malignancy, and 83% (10 of 12) for positive for malignancy. Conclusions.— The institutional 6-tier system provides a succinct, risk-of-malignancy–based system to report salivary gland cytology. Our experience with this system helps to pave the way for the adoption of the Milan System for Reporting Salivary Gland Cytopathology.

Breast Fine Needle Aspiration Biopsy Cytology Using the Newly Proposed IAC Yokohama System for Reporting Breast Cytopathology: The Experience of a Single Institution

2019 ◽  
Vol 63 (4) ◽  
pp. 274-279 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diana Montezuma ◽  
Daniela Malheiros ◽  
Fernando C. Schmitt
Keyword(s):  
Fine Needle Aspiration ◽  
Fine Needle Aspiration Biopsy ◽  
Reporting System ◽  
Diagnostic Yield ◽  
Needle Aspiration ◽  
Aspiration Biopsy ◽  
Fine Needle ◽  
Risk Of Malignancy ◽  
Needle Aspiration Biopsy ◽  
Sensitivity Specificity

Objective: Recently the International Academy of Cytology (IAC) proposed a new reporting system for breast fine needle aspiration biopsy (FNAB) cytology. We aimed to categorize our samples according to this classification and to assess the risk of malignancy (ROM) for each category as well as the diagnostic yield of breast FNAB. Study Design: Breast FNAB specimens obtained between January 2007 and December 2017 were reclassified according to the newly proposed IAC Yokohama reporting system. The ROM for each category was determined. Diagnostic yield was evaluated based on a three-category approach, benign versus malignant. Results: The samples were distributed as follows: insufficient material 5.77%, benign 73.38%, atypical 13.74%, suspicious for malignancy 1.57%, and malignant 5.54%. Of the 3,625 cases collected, 776 (21.4%) had corresponding histology. The respective ROM for each category was 4.8% for category 1 (insufficient material), 1.4% for category 2 (benign), 13% for category 3 (atypical), 97.1% for category 4 (suspicious for malignancy), and 100% for category 5 (malignant). When only malignant cases were considered positive tests, the sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy were 97.56, 100, and 99.11%, respectively. Conclusions: Our study is the first to categorize breast FNAB cytology samples according to the proposed IAC reporting system and to evaluate patient outcomes based on this categorization.

scholarly journals Demystifying Breast FNAC’s Based on the International Academy of Cytology, Yokohama Breast Cytopathology System- A Retrospective Study

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ashwini Nargund ◽  
Rakshitha Hosur Mohan ◽  
Malathi Mukunda Pai ◽  
Baalu Sadasivan ◽  
Priya Dharmalingam ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Predictive Value ◽  
Gold Standard ◽  
Reporting System ◽  
Breast Cancer Incidence ◽  
Breast Lesions ◽  
Study Results ◽  
Risk Of Malignancy ◽  
Sensitivity Specificity ◽  
International Academy

Introduction: Breast cancer affects 2.1 million women each year and is the most common cancer among females, followed by lung, colorectum, uterus, and cervix. Breast cancer accounted for 6,26,679 (6.6%) deaths in 2018. Breast cancer incidence is on the rise in every part of the globe, including developed countries. Fine Needle Aspiration Cytology (FNAC) shows high sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy in evaluation of breast lesions. FNAC is part of the triple test and is the gold standard for assessment. The new reporting system for breast FNAC, proposed by the International Academy of Cytology (IAC) Yokohama Breast Cytopathology System, has standardised the reporting system to categorise breast lesions and as unmasked the diagnostic dilemma faced by reporting cytopathologist. Aim: The study aimed to categorise the samples according to IAC Yokohama Breast Cytopathology System and assess the Risk of Malignancy (ROM) for each category and increase the diagnostic yield of breast FNAC. Materials and Methods: A retrospective cohort study included 1,467 breast FNAC cases, which were retrieved and reclassified based on the newly proposed IAC Yokohama System into five categories during January 2017-December 2018 in Kidwai Memorial Institute of Oncology (KMIO), Bangalore. Histopathology correlation was done, and the Risk of Malignancy (ROM) was assessed whenever possible. The study results were analysed using Microsoft excel 2007, sensitivity, specificity, Positive Predictive Value (PPV), Negative Predictive Value (NPV), and accuracy ratios were calculated using the MedCalc diagnostic test evaluation calculator, keeping histologic diagnosis as the gold standard. Results: Re-categorisation of 1,467 cases was done according to the Yokohama breast cytopathology system as insufficient material, benign, atypical, suspicious for malignancy, and malignant. The histopathology diagnosis was available in 1,069 cases. The respective ROM for each category was, 7.6% for category 1 (Insufficient), 15.26% for category 2 (Benign), 65.38% for category 3 (Atypical), 83.33% for category 4 (Suspicious) and 99.18% for category 5 (Malignant). Considering malignant cases as positive, sensitivity-86.75%, specificity-97.32%, PPV-99.19%, NPV-66.06% and accuracy of 88.96% was deduced. Conclusion: It is recommended to incorporate the IAC Yokohama system to categorise breast cytopathology with uniform terminologies. This will help diagnose breast lesions more consistently and accurately, which in turn helps the clinician manage the disease and predict the ROM and the patient outcome.

Internal quality control in an academic cytopathology laboratory for the introduction of a new reporting system for endometrial cytology

2017 ◽  
Vol 45 (10) ◽  
pp. 883-888 ◽  
Author(s):  
Niki Margari ◽  
Abraham Pouliakis ◽  
Dionysios Aninos ◽  
Christos Meristoudis ◽  
Magdalini Stamataki ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Control ◽  
Reporting System ◽  
Internal Quality Control ◽  
Internal Quality ◽  
Endometrial Cytology

The availability of a reporting system for endometrial cytology

2008 ◽  
Vol 47 (4) ◽  
pp. 311-316
Author(s):  
Kenji YANOH ◽  
Tetsuya MURATA ◽  
Akira KAMIMORI ◽  
Yutaka NAKAMURA ◽  
Takaharu YAMAWAKI ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Reporting System ◽  
Endometrial Cytology

Application of the Milan System for Risk Stratification and Its Comparison with a Previous Reporting System of Parotid Gland Cytopathology in a Tertiary Care Centre

2018 ◽  
Vol 62 (5-6) ◽  
pp. 352-359 ◽  
Author(s):  
Archana George Vallonthaiel ◽  
Seema Kaushal ◽  
Hemlata Jangir ◽  
Hemanth Kumar Rajendran
Keyword(s):  
Risk Stratification ◽  
Parotid Gland ◽  
Reporting System ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Malignant Neoplasm ◽  
Tertiary Care Centre ◽  
Fine Needle Aspirates ◽  
Parotid Region ◽  
Malignant Group ◽  
Risk Of Malignancy

Objective: To compare the recently proposed Milan System for Reporting Salivary Gland Cytopathology (MSRSGC) with the four-tiered reporting system (FTRS) followed at our institute. Methods: Parotid gland fine-needle aspirates reported over a period of 5 years were analysed. These aspirates had been placed into 4 categories according to the FTRS: unsatisfactory (UNS), no evidence of malignancy/negative (NEG), inconclusive for malignancy (INC), and diagnostic for malignancy/positive (POS). Aspirates with follow-up histopathology were then categorized according to the MSRSGC as follows: non-diagnostic, non-neoplastic, atypia of unde­termined significance (AUS), neoplasm, suspicious for malignancy, and malignant. The risk of malignancy (ROM) was calculated. Results: A total of 893 parotid region aspirates were evaluated and histopathology was available for 190 cases (21%). ROM in MSRSGC groups, namely non-diagnostic, non-neoplastic, AUS, neoplasm, suspicious for malignant neoplasm, and malignant, was 44, 8, 0, 12, 81 and 100%, respectively. ROM in FTRS groups, namely UNS, NEG, INC, and POS, was 45, 13, 67 and 100%, respectively. Conclusions: MSRGC and FTRS are comparable with respect to the ROM across groups. Compared to FTRS, the further subcategorisation of the non-malignant group, the use of specific nomenclature, and the reproducibility of MSRGC provide proper risk stratification, thereby guiding better management and resulting in improved patient care.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document