4.0 Article

The utility of the Milan System as a risk stratification tool for salivary gland fine needle aspiration cytology specimens

Journal

CYTOPATHOLOGY
Volume 30, Issue 1, Pages 91-98

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/cyt.12642

Keywords

cytology; fine needle aspiration; Milan system; risk of malignancy; salivary gland

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective To perform a retrospective investigation of our institutional experience with salivary gland fine needle aspirations (FNA) through the framework of The Milan System for Reporting Salivary Gland Cytopathology (MSRSGC) and assess the risks of neoplasm and malignancy for each diagnostic category. Methods All salivary gland FNAs performed from January 2009 to December 2016 were retrospectively categorised according to the MSRSGC. When available, pre-operative cytological results were correlated with subsequent histological follow-up. Results In total, 893 FNAs were reviewed. The specimens were retrospectively classified as nondiagnostic (ND: 13.5%), non-neoplastic (NN: 16.1%), atypia of undetermined significance (AUS: 10.8%), benign neoplasm (BN: 34.9%), salivary gland neoplasm of uncertain malignant potential (SUMP: 8.2%), suspicious for malignancy (SM: 2.7%) and malignant (M: 13.8%). Histological follow-up was available for 429 cases (48%); the majority (68.1%) were benign. The risks of neoplasm and malignancy for each category were as follows: ND: 64.5%, 16.1%; NN: 42.9%, 17.9%; AUS: 79.6%, 30.6%; BN: 100%, 2.2%; SUMP: 100%, 46.6%; SM: 94.7%, 78.9%; and M: 100%, 98.5%. Conclusions The MSRSGC is a useful classification scheme for stratifying salivary gland lesions according to their associated risk of malignancy and guiding clinicians toward appropriate management. Diagnostic pitfalls are seen in a small proportion of cases and a multidisciplinary approach for assessing salivary gland pathology is essential in their evaluation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available