4.1 Article

Accuracy of fine-needle aspiration cytology of head and neck masses

Journal

DIAGNOSTIC CYTOPATHOLOGY
Volume 47, Issue 5, Pages 394-399

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/dc.24120

Keywords

fine needle aspiration cytology; head and neck; lymph node; salivary gland; thyroid gland

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BackgroundHead and neck masses are a common presentation in daily practice and can be challenging to both clinicians and cytopathologists. Fine needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) is a widely used method for the diagnosis of head and neck masses. The aim of the study was to assess our institutional experience of the accuracy of FNAC in the diagnosis of head and neck masses. MethodsA total of 1262 FNACs were conducted from January 2013 to December 2016 and subdivided into benign and malignant categories. The thyroid and salivary glands FNACs were classified according to the Bethesda System for Reporting Thyroid cytopathology and to the Milan System for Reporting Salivary Gland Cytopathology respectively. The measures of diagnostic accuracy of FNAC were determined taking histology as a gold standard. ResultsA total of 7 false negative (FN) and 6 false positive (FP) FNACs were identified. Overall sensitivity and specificity of FNAC for a malignant diagnosis were 92% and 94.4%, respectively. Accuracy of FNACs of head and neck masses was 93.5% for all sites. The salivary gland group had the highest rate of FN (2.8%). All FP were reported in the thyroid group. These cases were cytologically classified suspicious for malignancy (n= 3) and papillary carcinoma (n= 3) and proved to be lymphocytic thyroiditis on final histology. Among the most common locations, cytology of lymph nodes provided the best sensitivity (98.2%). Salivary glands as well as lymph nodes had the best specificity (100%). ConclusionFNAC of head and neck masses has a high accuracy allowing a correct therapeutic management. However, this accuracy depends on the anatomic location of the mass.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available