4.6 Article

The outcomes and decision-making process for neck lymph nodes with indeterminate fine-needle aspiration cytology

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 16, Issue 2, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0246437

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Far Eastern Memorial Hospital Research Program [FEMH-2016-C-026, FEMH-2017-C015]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A cytological classification and four other predictors are statistically associated with the risk of malignancy in patients with neck lymph nodes with indeterminate cytology, which are helpful in guiding further management.
Objectives This study aims to propose a cytological classification, to evaluate predictive factors of the final malignancy, and to suggest a proper management strategy for neck lymph nodes (LNs) with indeterminate cytology. Methods Patients who had neck lymphadenopathy with indeterminate cytology between 2007 and 2017 were analyzed retrospectively in a tertiary medical center. Cytological classification was conducted according to the cytological descriptions. We examined the clinical characteristics according to the final diagnosis of the neck lymphadenopathy. Results According to the final diagnoses, there were 142 malignant and 95 benign neck LNs among 237 patients. Multivariate analyses using a stepwise logistic regression model showed that cytological classification [p < 0.001, OR = 5.67 (3.48-9.23)], prior history of malignancy [p = 0.01, OR = 2.97 (1.26-6.99)], long axis [p = 0.01, OR = 3.06 (1.33-7.06)], short-to-long axis (S/L) ratio [p = 0.047, OR = 2.15 (1.01-4.57)] and internal echogenicity [p = 0.01, OR = 2.72 (1.26-5.86)] were independent predictors of malignancy. Conclusions In patients who have neck LNs with indeterminate cytology, a cytological classification and four other predictors (prior history of malignancy, long axis >= 1.93 cm, S/L ratio >= 0.64 and heterogeneity of internal echogenicity) are statistically associated with the risk of malignancy and helpful in guiding further management.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available