Cytologic Categorization with Risk Stratification of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration from Pancreatic Lesions Based on Guidelines of the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology: 12-Year Tertiary Care Experience

Résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Pancreatic malignancy is an important cause of cancer mortality worldwide. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) plays a crucial role in the pre-operative diagnosis of pancreatic lesions. In this study, we have analyzed the cytological spectrum of pancreatic lesions in the Indian population over 12 years, categorized them according to the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology System for Reporting Pancreaticobiliary Cytology (PSCPC), and assessed the risk of malignancy (ROM) for each of the categories. METHODS: A computerized data search from January 2008 to December 2019 revealed 581 pancreatic EUS-FNA samples, among which surgical follow-up was available for 73 cases. All cytological specimens were reviewed and prospectively classified into one of the six diagnostic categories proposed by the PSCPC. Subsequently, a cytohistological correlation was performed and the ROM was calculated for each category. RESULTS: The cytologic diagnoses included 50 nondiagnostic (category I), 175 negative for malignancy (category II), 19 atypical (category III), 27 neoplastic:benign (category IVA), 30 neoplastic:other (category IVB), 26 suspicious (category V), and 254 malignant (category VI) cases. ROM for non-diagnostic aspirates, nonneoplastic benign specimens, atypical cases, neoplastic:benign, neoplastic:other, suspicious for malignancy, and the malignant category was 16.7%, 7.1%, 33.3%, 0.0%, 20.0%, 100%, and 78.6%, respectively. CONCLUSION: We document an increased risk of malignancy from category I to category VI of the PSCPC. The malignancy risk for category VI (malignant) was statistically significant in our study but was lower in comparison to the values reported by other authors. Nonetheless, such an approach would establish transparent communication between the pathologist and the clinician, as well as aid the clinician in decision making, particularly in intermediate categories.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.