4.6 Article

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

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 16, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

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

关键词

-

资金

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

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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.

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

4.6
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