OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to evaluate the typing accuracy of conventional smear (CS), cell block (CB) preparations and combined use of both procedures (CS + CB) for the diagnosis of hepatic malignancies and to determine whether immediate on-site cytopathological evaluation improves the diagnostic yield of liver fine-needle aspiration cytology (FNAC). METHODS: Ultrasound-guided FNABs were performed on 323 consecutive cases with liver masses between December 2002 and December 2004. Histologically and/or clinically correlated 167 cases were included in the study. Preliminary FNAB results, results of CS, CB, and combined use of CS and CB were compared regarding diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for the diagnosis of malignancy. Subtyping accuracies of different methods were also compared. RESULTS: The sensitivity of on-site cytopathological examination and CS were both 92.8%. The sensitivity of CS + CB was slightly better than that of CB (93.5% versus 84.8%). Specificity of all procedures was achieved 100%. Diagnostic accuracy of on-site cytopathological evaluation, CS, CB, and CS + CB were 93.9%, 93.9%, 87.2%, and 94.5%, respectively. A specific subtype diagnosis of malignant tumours could be rendered accurately on the basis of preliminary diagnosis in 71%, CS in 75.4%, CB in 78.3% and combined approach in 92% of cases. In terms of typing accuracy, 87.5% of HCCs, 93.2% of adenocarcinomas, 92.3% of neuroendocrine carcinomas, 100% of lymphomas and 100% of other malignant tumours were correctly subclassified in the final cytopathological diagnosis. The agreement between preliminary diagnosis and final cytopathological diagnosis was 77.2%. CONCLUSION: With use of on-site cytopathological evaluation and combined use of CS and CB, the diagnostic accuracy of liver tumours approaches 100% and also significantly improve diagnostic and subtyping accuracy of liver malignancies.
OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to evaluate the typing accuracy of conventional smear (CS), cell block (CB) preparations and combined use of both procedures (CS + CB) for the diagnosis of hepatic malignancies and to determine whether immediate on-site cytopathological evaluation improves the diagnostic yield of liver fine-needle aspiration cytology (FNAC). METHODS: Ultrasound-guided FNABs were performed on 323 consecutive cases with liver masses between December 2002 and December 2004. Histologically and/or clinically correlated 167 cases were included in the study. Preliminary FNAB results, results of CS, CB, and combined use of CS and CB were compared regarding diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for the diagnosis of malignancy. Subtyping accuracies of different methods were also compared. RESULTS: The sensitivity of on-site cytopathological examination and CS were both 92.8%. The sensitivity of CS + CB was slightly better than that of CB (93.5% versus 84.8%). Specificity of all procedures was achieved 100%. Diagnostic accuracy of on-site cytopathological evaluation, CS, CB, and CS + CB were 93.9%, 93.9%, 87.2%, and 94.5%, respectively. A specific subtype diagnosis of malignant tumours could be rendered accurately on the basis of preliminary diagnosis in 71%, CS in 75.4%, CB in 78.3% and combined approach in 92% of cases. In terms of typing accuracy, 87.5% of HCCs, 93.2% of adenocarcinomas, 92.3% of neuroendocrine carcinomas, 100% of lymphomas and 100% of other malignant tumours were correctly subclassified in the final cytopathological diagnosis. The agreement between preliminary diagnosis and final cytopathological diagnosis was 77.2%. CONCLUSION: With use of on-site cytopathological evaluation and combined use of CS and CB, the diagnostic accuracy of liver tumours approaches 100% and also significantly improve diagnostic and subtyping accuracy of liver malignancies.