4.0 Review

Cytopathologist-performed and ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration cytology enhances diagnostic accuracy and avoids pitfalls: An overview of 20 years of personal experience with a selection of didactic cases

Journal

CYTOJOURNAL
Volume 15, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

MEDKNOW PUBLICATIONS & MEDIA PVT LTD
DOI: 10.4103/cytojournal.cytojournal_20_17

Keywords

Cytopathologist-performed ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration cytology; fine-needle aspiration diagnostic accuracy; fine-needle aspiration pitfalls; one-stop fine-needle aspiration clinic; ultrasound guidance

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Over the last few decades, fine needle aspiration cytology (FNA) has emerged as a SAFE (Simple, Accurate, Fast, Economical) diagnostic tool based on the morphologic evaluation of cells. The first and most important step in obtaining accurate results from FNA is to procure sufficient and representative material from the lesion and to appropriately transfer this material to the laboratory. Unfortunately, the most important aspect of this task occurs beyond the control of the cytopathologist, a key reason for obtaining unsatisfactory results with FNA. There is growing interest in the field of cytology in cytopathologist-performed ultrasound (US)-guided FNA,which has been reported to yield accurate results. The first author has been applying FNA in his own private cytopathology practice with a radiologist and under the guidance of US for more than 20 years. This study retrospectively reviews the utility of this practice. We present a selection of didactic examples under different headings that highlight the application of FNA by a cytopathologist, accompanied by US, under the guidance of a radiologist, in the form of an outpatient FNA clinic. The use of this technique enhances diagnostic accuracy and prevents pitfalls. The highlights of each case are also outlined as take-home messages.

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