4.2 Article

The Role of Fine Needle Aspiration in the Diagnosis of Parotid Gland Tumors: Correlation With Preoperative Computerized Tomography Tumor Size

Journal

JOURNAL OF CRANIOFACIAL SURGERY
Volume 27, Issue 2, Pages E192-E196

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000002446

Keywords

FNAC; parotid gland tumors; preoperative CT; sensitivity; specificity

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The role of fine needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) in the diagnosis of parotid gland masses is still controversial, regarding its sensitivity and specificity that vary between 41% and 100% and between 86% and 100% respectively. The aim of this study was to identify the specificity and sensitivity of FNAC of parotid gland tumors in relation to the tumor size as characterized preoperatively by computer tomography. The medical files of 79 patients whom were referred to the MaxilloFacila Surgery Department, Rambam medical center, over a 10.5-year period (2000-2010) were analyzed retrospectively. The extensity of the operation was determined by the location of the tumor as presented in computed tomography (CT) radiography, and preoperative FNAC examination. The majority of the masses were located in the superficial lobe (88.52%), and only 11.48% of the patients were located in the deep lobe (8:1 ratio). FNAC results were nondiagnostic in 7 patients (8.86%), 62 patients were diagnosed as inflammatory and benign lesion in (78.48%), malignant tumors were diagnosed in 10 patients (12.65%). The sensitivity in our study was 90%, the specificity was 98%, positive predictive value was 90%, negative predictive value was 98%, and diagnostic accuracy was 88%. The positive predictive value was 90%, the negative predictive value was 98%. Analyzing the effect of the preoperative CT size upon the accuracy of the FNAC diagnosis, we found that lesion with preoperative CT size greater than 24 mm has a more accurate FNAC result (P=0.034).

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available