ArticleJournal of cytology
Reporting Pancreatic FNAC using the Papanicolaou System: Still a Diagnostic Challenge.
Article in Journal of cytology. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology System for reporting Pancreaticobiliary Cytology (PSCPC) is a reliable method to classify pancreatic fine needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) smears. However, it is not without practical problems which can diminish the diagnostic accuracy of the cytological diagnosis. Aims and Objectives: To determine the diagnostic pitfalls while reporting cytomorphology of pancreatic lesions according to PSCPC on correlating FNAC findings with histopathology. Materials and Methods: Retrospective analysis of pancreatic FNAC smears received in the Department of Pathology of our tertiary care institute over a period of 2 years was done. The cytological diagnoses were classified according to the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology system of reporting pancreaticobiliary cytology and correlated with histopathology. The reasons of cyto-histological discordance were analyzed. Results: Out of 50 cases in which both FNAC and biopsy of pancreatic lesions were done, 34 cases were positive/malignant (Category VI), eight cases were suspicious for malignancy (Category V), three cases were neoplastic (Category IV), two cases were atypical (Category III), two cases were negative for malignancy (Category II), and one case was non-diagnostic (Category I). Out of 50 cases, histopathology was non-diagnostic due to inadequate material in six cases. The cytological diagnoses were compared with histopathology in the remaining 44 cases. Categories III, IV V, and VI were considered as positive for neoplastic pathology. The sensitivity of FNAC to predict neoplastic pathology was 97.5%, while the specificity was 25%. The positive predictive value was 92.9%. Two cases reported as atypical (Category III) turned out to be adenocarcinoma on histopathology. One case reported as neuroendocrine tumor and two cases reported as adenocarcinoma on cytology displayed features of chronic pancreatitis on histology. One case reported as neoplastic mucinous cyst (Category IV) turned out to be adenocarcinoma on histology (limited concordance). Conclusion: The cytopathologist needs to be wary of the potential pitfalls to improve the diagnostic accuracy of FNACs.
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.