CONTEXT: We use data from the College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Nongynecologic Cytology to identify common diagnostic errors in salivary gland fine-needle aspiration (FNA). OBJECTIVE: To identify salivary gland FNA cases with poor performance characteristics in the Nongynecologic Cytology Program surveys, so that the most common diagnostic pitfalls can be avoided. DESIGN: A retrospective review of the College of American Pathologists Nongynecologic Cytology Program's cumulative data from 1999 to 2003 revealed the most common false-positive and false-negative interpretations on FNA for common salivary gland lesions. Slides that performed poorly were then reviewed to identify the cytologic characteristics that may have contributed to their poor performance. RESULTS: A total of 6249 participant responses with general interpretations of benign (n = 4642) or malignant (n= 1607) were reviewed. The sensitivity and specificity of the participant responses for correctly interpreting the cases as benign or malignant were 73% and 91%, respectively. Benign cases with the highest false-positive rates were monomorphic adenoma (53% false-positive), intraparotid lymph node (36%), oncocytoma (18%), and granulomatous sialadenitis (10%). Malignant cases with the highest false-negative rates were lymphoma (57%), acinic cell carcinoma (49%), low-grade mucoepidermoid carcinoma (43%), and adenoid cystic carcinoma (33%). Selected review of the most discordant individual cases revealed possible explanations for some of the interpretative errors. CONCLUSIONS: These data confirm the difficulty associated with interpretation of salivary gland FNA specimens. Cytologists should be aware of the potential false-positive and false-negative interpretations that can occur in FNAs from this organ site in order to minimize the possibility of diagnostic errors.
CONTEXT: We use data from the College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Nongynecologic Cytology to identify common diagnostic errors in salivary gland fine-needle aspiration (FNA). OBJECTIVE: To identify salivary gland FNA cases with poor performance characteristics in the Nongynecologic Cytology Program surveys, so that the most common diagnostic pitfalls can be avoided. DESIGN: A retrospective review of the College of American Pathologists Nongynecologic Cytology Program's cumulative data from 1999 to 2003 revealed the most common false-positive and false-negative interpretations on FNA for common salivary gland lesions. Slides that performed poorly were then reviewed to identify the cytologic characteristics that may have contributed to their poor performance. RESULTS: A total of 6249 participant responses with general interpretations of benign (n = 4642) or malignant (n= 1607) were reviewed. The sensitivity and specificity of the participant responses for correctly interpreting the cases as benign or malignant were 73% and 91%, respectively. Benign cases with the highest false-positive rates were monomorphic adenoma (53% false-positive), intraparotid lymph node (36%), oncocytoma (18%), and granulomatous sialadenitis (10%). Malignant cases with the highest false-negative rates were lymphoma (57%), acinic cell carcinoma (49%), low-grade mucoepidermoid carcinoma (43%), and adenoid cystic carcinoma (33%). Selected review of the most discordant individual cases revealed possible explanations for some of the interpretative errors. CONCLUSIONS: These data confirm the difficulty associated with interpretation of salivary gland FNA specimens. Cytologists should be aware of the potential false-positive and false-negative interpretations that can occur in FNAs from this organ site in order to minimize the possibility of diagnostic errors.
Authors: Christopher C Griffith; Reetesh K Pai; Frank Schneider; Umamaheswar Duvvuri; Robert L Ferris; Jonas T Johnson; Raja R Seethala Journal: Am J Clin Pathol Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 2.493
Authors: Eric Barbarite; Sidharth V Puram; Adeeb Derakhshan; Esther D Rossi; William C Faquin; Mark A Varvares Journal: Laryngoscope Date: 2019-03-08 Impact factor: 3.325
Authors: D H Mallon; M Kostalas; F J MacPherson; A Parmar; A Drysdale; E Chisholm; S Sadek Journal: Ann R Coll Surg Engl Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 1.891
Authors: Daniel F I Kurtycz; Ester Diana Rossi; Zubair Baloch; Derek Pavelec; Emilio Madrigal; Philippe Vielh; William Faquin Journal: J Am Soc Cytopathol Date: 2020-02-11