ArticleCureus2021
Diagnostic Concordance of Cytology and Histology in Samples Obtained via Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Biopsy (EUS-FNB).
Article in Cureus, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration and biopsy (FNA/FNB) to obtain cytological aspirates and histological core samples, respectively, are the standard of care for diagnosing lesions in/adjacent to the upper/lower gastrointestinal tract. Due to the lack of standardization of tissue processing, it is unclear whether core samples should be sent only for histology (formalin) or cytology (CytoLyt), or both. The aim of this study was to investigate the diagnostic concordance rates between cytology and histology on EUS-FNB core samples. Methods A total of 227 patients underwent EUS-FNB between October-2017 and February-2019 by a single therapeutic endoscopist; 44 core-tissue samples (41 patients) were placed alternately in CytoLyt (cytology) and formalin (histology), with equal passes into each, to best achieve a proportionate sample amount. The patient's demographics, medical history, pertinent imaging, EUS indication/findings were reviewed. Main outcomes included concordance rates between cytology-histology and diagnostic accuracy for malignancy. Results Cytology and histology were discordant in five cases (11.5%); four with negative cytology but a definite diagnosis of malignancy achieved with histology. One case was suspected as neoplasm on cytology but further characterized as benign on histology. Cytology failed to sub-characterize an additional four mass-like pancreatic benign entities, due to inadequate tissue architecture assessment in the CytoLyt sample. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of cytology for diagnosis of malignancy were 87.88% (95%CI: 71.8-96.6), 90.91% (95%CI: 58.7-99.7), 96.67% (95%CI: 81.6-99.4), and 71.43% (95%CI: 49.4-86.4). Discussion We observed 11.5% diagnostic discordance between cytology and histology on EUS-FNB core samples, with histology being superior. Future multicenter prospective randomized studies are needed to establish an accurate and cost-effective diagnostic process.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.