4.5 Article

Accuracy of fine-needle aspiration and imaging in the preoperative workup of salivary gland mass lesions treated surgically

期刊

LARYNGOSCOPE
卷 123, 期 1, 页码 158-163

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/lary.23613

关键词

Parotid; neoplasm; fine-needle aspiration; sensitivity; specificity; Level of Evidence: 2b

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives/Hypothesis: Fine-needle aspiration (FNA) biopsy and imaging are commonly used in the preoperative assessment of salivary gland mass lesions. The goal of this retrospective study was to clarify the role of FNA and imaging in the workup of salivary gland masses. Study Design: Retrospective cohort study. Methods: A computer search identified patients with an FNA of a salivary gland lesion with subsequent excision during a 10-year study period. Chart review of study patients was performed, and information on site of lesion, age, gender, radiologic diagnosis, pain in the tumor area, and facial paralysis was recorded and analyzed. Results: There were 543 patients who had an FNA and subsequent histopathology. The majority of the tumors were in the parotid gland (n = 492, 90.9%), followed by submandibular gland (n = 45, 8.3%). The incidence of malignancy across all sites was 29.7%. The mean patient age was 54.1 years, and 54.1% were female. The sensitivity and specificity of FNA were 85.7% and 99.5%, respectively. Positive predictive value (PPV) was 98.6%, and negative predictive value (NPV) was 94.3%. A total of 464 patients had available radiologic studies. For the radiological diagnoses, sensitivity was 81.8% and specificity was 67.3%, whereas PPV and NPV were 52.7% and 89.3%, respectively. Conclusions: FNA is a reliable method of preoperatively assessing both benign and malignant salivary gland lesions. Preoperative imaging has a lower sensitivity and specificity than FNA in differentiating malignant from benign tumors. Older age, pain, and facial paralysis are clinical features independently associated with malignancy. Laryngoscope, 2013

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据