Article Text

PDF
The role of laboratory processing in determining diagnostic conclusiveness of breast fine needle aspirations: conventional smearing versus a monolayer preparation
  1. C A P Wauters1,
  2. B Kooistra2,
  3. L J A Strobbe2
  1. 1
    Department of Pathology, Canisius Wilhelmina Ziekenhuis, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
  2. 2
    Department of Surgery, Canisius Wilhelmina Ziekenhuis, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
  1. Correspondence to Carla A P Wauters, Canisius Wilhelmina Ziekenhuis, Weg door Jonkerbosch 100, 6532 SZ Nijmegen, The Netherlands; c.wauters{at}cwz.nl

Abstract

Aim: To compare breast fine needle aspiration (FNA) specimens prepared by conventional smearing (CS) versus monolayer preparation (MP), with respect to the conclusiveness of the cytopathological diagnosis.

Methods: From 1992 to 1996, aspirators prepared aspirates themselves by direct smearing onto 2–4 slides. From 1999 to 2003, aspirate preparation was performed in the laboratory, creating a MP, using a Hettich cytocentrifuge. FNA diagnoses were categorised into inadequate (C1), benign (C2), atypical (C3), suspicious for malignancy (C4) and malignant (C5). The reference standard constituted histological follow-up. A conclusive FNA diagnosis was defined as C2 in lesions benign on follow-up and C5 in lesions malignant on histology.

Results: From 1992 to 1996, 692 aspirates were processed by CS, whereas from 1999 to 2003, 1301 aspirates were processed by MP. More FNA were ultrasound-guided in the MP group (85.6% versus 21.5%, p<0.001). When compared with CS, MP-prepared FNA had conclusive diagnoses significantly more often (72.8% versus 58.5%, p<0.001). This effect remained significant when corrected for the difference in ultrasound guidance (adjusted odds ratio 1.7, 95% confidence interval 1.3 to 2.2, p<0.001), and was larger for malignant lesions than for benign lesions (51.7% versus 79.9%, p<0.001).

Conclusion: Patients presenting with breast lesions can more often be offered a same-day, conclusive cytopathological diagnosis when FNA are prepared by a manual MP processing technique.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Competing interests None.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.