首页> 外文OA文献 >Performance differences between conventional smears and liquid-based preparations of thyroid fine-needle aspiration samples: analysis of 47,076 responses in the College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Non-Gynecologic Cytology
【2h】

Performance differences between conventional smears and liquid-based preparations of thyroid fine-needle aspiration samples: analysis of 47,076 responses in the College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Non-Gynecologic Cytology

机译:常规涂片与甲状腺细针抽吸样品液基制剂之间的性能差异:美国病理学家非实验室细胞学实验室间实验室比较项目中47,076例反应的分析

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

CONTEXT: Controversy exists about whether thyroid fine-needle aspirates (FNAs) should be processed with conventional smears or liquid-based preparations (LBPs).OBJECTIVE: To compare the performance of conventional smears to LBPs for thyroid FNA slides circulated in the College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Non-Gynecologic Cytology.DESIGN: Participant responses for thyroid FNA slides were compared with the reference diagnosis at the level of 3 general diagnostic categories: negative, suspicious (which included only follicular and Hurthle cell neoplasm), and malignant. For specific reference diagnoses of benign/goiter and papillary thyroid carcinoma, the participants\u27 specific diagnoses were analyzed and poorly performing slides were rereviewed.RESULTS: The 47, 076 thyroid FNA slide responses, between 2001 and 2009, included 44, 478 responses (94%) for conventional smears and 2598 responses (6%) for LBPs. For the general reference category negative, participant responses were discrepant in 14.9% of conventional smears compared with 5.9% for LBPs (P \u3c .001). The specific reference diagnosis of benign/goiter was misdiagnosed as a follicular neoplasm in 7.8% of conventional smears, compared with 1.3% of LBP. For the general reference category of malignant, participant responses were discrepant in 7.3% of conventional smears compared with 14.7% of LBPs (P \u3c .001). The specific reference diagnosis of papillary thyroid carcinoma was misdiagnosed as benign/goiter in 7.2% of LBPs, compared with 4.8% of conventional smears (p \u3c.001).CONCLUSIONS: LBPs performed worse than conventional smears for cases with a reference diagnosis of papillary thyroid carcinoma. However, LBPs performed better than conventional smears for cases with a benign reference diagnosis. Specific features in thyroid FNAs that may improve the diagnostic accuracy of LBPs and conventional smears are described.
机译:背景:关于是否应使用常规涂片或液基制剂(LBPs)处理甲状腺细针抽吸物(FNAs)存在争议。目的:比较美国大学发行的甲状腺FNA玻片的常规涂片与LBPs的表现病理学家非妇科细胞学实验室间比较计划。设计:将甲状腺FNA载玻片的参与者反应与参考诊断在3个一般诊断类别的水平上进行比较:阴性,可疑(仅包括滤泡和尿道上皮细胞瘤)和恶性。对于良性/甲状腺肿和乳头状甲状腺癌的具体参考诊断,分析了参与者的具体诊断并回顾了表现欠佳的载玻片。结果:2001年至2009年间,共有47 076例甲状腺FNA载玻片反应包括44 478例(常规涂片为94%),LBP为2598例(6%)。对于一般参考类别为阴性的受试者,在常规涂片中,参与者的反应差异为14.9%,而对于LBPs,则为5.9%(P <0.001)。良性/甲状腺肿的特定参考诊断被误诊为7.8%常规涂片中的滤泡性肿瘤,而LBP为1.3%。对于恶性肿瘤的一般参考类别,参与者的反应在常规涂片中占7.3%,而LBPs则为14.7%(P <0.001)。 7.2%的LBP误诊为乳头状甲状腺癌的特定参考诊断为良性/甲状腺肿,而常规涂片为4.8%(p \ u3c.001)。结论:对于参考诊断为LBP的病例,LBP的表现比常规涂片差。甲状腺乳头状癌。但是,对于具有良性参考诊断的病例,LBP的表现优于常规涂片。甲状腺FNA的特定功能可能会提高LBP和常规涂片的诊断准确性。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号