ArticleActa cytologica2026
Diagnostic Utility of Endoscopic Crush Cytology in Gastrointestinal Malignancies.
Article in Acta cytologica, 2026. 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
introductionGastrointestinal (GI) cancers represent one of the most pressing global public health challenges, accounting to nearly one-third of all cancer-related mortality worldwide. Cytological evaluation allows rapid interpretation and triaging of material. Crush cytology is an added asset to histology to maximize diagnostic accuracy and accelerate decision-making for the management of these lesions. This study aimed to assess the diagnostic utility of endoscopic crush cytology in GI tract lesions.
methodsA cross-sectional observational study was conducted on GI crush cytology samples received at department of pathology from January 2019 to December 2024. These cases were cytologically categorized across various GI sites as follows, negative for malignancy, atypical favors reactive, atypical suspicious for malignancy and positive for malignancy. The corresponding biopsy slides were reviewed and documented. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and diagnostic accuracy were calculated.
resultsDuring the study period, we reviewed 303 cases of GI crush cytology. The mean age at presentation was 60 years (age range: 17-90 years) with a male-to-female ratio of 2:1. These cases were categorized into lower GI with 151 (49.8%) cases and upper GI with 152 (50.2%) cases. The most common site of involvement was colorectal with 146 (48.2%) cases followed by gastric region with 58 (19.1%) cases and esophagus with 31 (10.2%) cases. Negative for malignancy accounts for 7 (2.3%) cases, atypical favors reactive accounts for 120 (39.6%) cases, atypical suspicious for malignancy accounts for 4 (1.3%) cases, and positive for malignancy accounts for 172 (56.8%) cases across the GI region. Histopathology correlation was available in 179 (59.1%) cases. The overall GI crush cytology sensitivity was 96.1%, specificity was 96.2%, PPV was 98.4%, NPV was 90.9% and the diagnostic accuracy was 96.1%. The Youden's index was 0.9222, and the p value was <0.001 (χ2).
conclusionCrush cytology is a highly sensitive, specific, rapid, and cost-effective technique for diagnosing GI malignancies in endoscopically suspected malignant lesions. It is a valuable complement to histology, enhancing diagnostic accuracy and accelerating decision-making to manage these lesions. The present study highlights the significant diagnostic utility of crush cytology by demonstrating high sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy, particularly in detecting adenocarcinomas and squamous cell carcinomas.
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.