BACKGROUND: To establish the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of imaging and fine-needle aspiration (FNA), alone or in combination, in distinguishing benign from malignant histologic findings for parotid lesions. METHODS: Retrospective blinded review of preoperative imaging and FNA studies of parotid masses and comparison with histologic findings after excision. RESULTS: Forty-eight patients were identified (13 with CT, 35 with MRI); 23 (48%) of the lesions were malignant, 25 (52%) were benign. MRI, CT, and FNA misclassified 17%, 46%, and 21% of the lesions, respectively. The sensitivity/specificity/accuracy of these tests for detecting malignant lesions were as follows: MRI (88%,77%,83%), CT (100%,42%, 69%), and FNA (83%,86%,85%) and were not significantly different. Combinations of imaging and FNA were not significantly better in detecting malignancy. CONCLUSIONS: Imaging and FNA are comparable in their ability to correctly identify malignant parotid lesions preoperatively. Combining these two modalities yields no advantage in terms of specificity, sensitivity, or accuracy of a malignant diagnosis.
BACKGROUND: To establish the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of imaging and fine-needle aspiration (FNA), alone or in combination, in distinguishing benign from malignant histologic findings for parotid lesions. METHODS: Retrospective blinded review of preoperative imaging and FNA studies of parotid masses and comparison with histologic findings after excision. RESULTS: Forty-eight patients were identified (13 with CT, 35 with MRI); 23 (48%) of the lesions were malignant, 25 (52%) were benign. MRI, CT, and FNA misclassified 17%, 46%, and 21% of the lesions, respectively. The sensitivity/specificity/accuracy of these tests for detecting malignant lesions were as follows: MRI (88%,77%,83%), CT (100%,42%, 69%), and FNA (83%,86%,85%) and were not significantly different. Combinations of imaging and FNA were not significantly better in detecting malignancy. CONCLUSIONS: Imaging and FNA are comparable in their ability to correctly identify malignant parotid lesions preoperatively. Combining these two modalities yields no advantage in terms of specificity, sensitivity, or accuracy of a malignant diagnosis.