OBJECTIVE: To determine the accuracy of cytologic diagnosis, compared with histologic diagnosis, in determination of disease in ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspirates of splenic lesions. DESIGN: Retrospective study. SAMPLE POPULATION: Splenic specimens from 29 dogs and 3 cats. PROCEDURES: Records were searched for dogs and cats that had undergone ultrasound-guided splenic aspiration. Criteria for inclusion were ultrasonographic identification of splenic lesions and cytologic and histologic evaluation of tissue from the same lesion. Cytologic samples were obtained by fine-needle aspiration, and histologic specimens were obtained via surgical biopsy, ultrasound-guided biopsy, or necropsy. RESULTS: Cytologic diagnoses corresponded with histologic diagnoses in 19 of 31 (61.3%) cases and differed in 5 of 31(16.1%) cases, and 1 aspirate was inadequate for evaluation. In 7 of 31 (22.6%) cases, histologic evaluation of tissue architecture was required to distinguish between reactive and neoplastic conditions. On the basis of histologic diagnosis in 14 animals with nonneoplastic conditions, the cytologic diagnosis was correct in 11 cases, not definitive in 2 cases, and incorrect in 1 case. In 17 animals with malignant neoplastic diseases, the cytologic diagnosis was correct in 8 cases, not definitive but consistent with possible neoplasia in 5 cases, and incorrect in 4 cases. Multiple similar-appearing nodules were significantly associated with malignancy, whereas single lesions were more often benign. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Ultrasound-guided aspiration of splenic lesions is a minimally invasive tool for obtaining specimens for cytologic evaluation. Although cytologic diagnoses often reflect histologic results, if missampling or incomplete sampling occurs or tissue architecture is required to distinguish between reactive and neoplastic conditions, accurate diagnosis with fine-needle aspiration may not be possible.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the accuracy of cytologic diagnosis, compared with histologic diagnosis, in determination of disease in ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspirates of splenic lesions. DESIGN: Retrospective study. SAMPLE POPULATION: Splenic specimens from 29 dogs and 3 cats. PROCEDURES: Records were searched for dogs and cats that had undergone ultrasound-guided splenic aspiration. Criteria for inclusion were ultrasonographic identification of splenic lesions and cytologic and histologic evaluation of tissue from the same lesion. Cytologic samples were obtained by fine-needle aspiration, and histologic specimens were obtained via surgical biopsy, ultrasound-guided biopsy, or necropsy. RESULTS: Cytologic diagnoses corresponded with histologic diagnoses in 19 of 31 (61.3%) cases and differed in 5 of 31(16.1%) cases, and 1 aspirate was inadequate for evaluation. In 7 of 31 (22.6%) cases, histologic evaluation of tissue architecture was required to distinguish between reactive and neoplastic conditions. On the basis of histologic diagnosis in 14 animals with nonneoplastic conditions, the cytologic diagnosis was correct in 11 cases, not definitive in 2 cases, and incorrect in 1 case. In 17 animals with malignant neoplastic diseases, the cytologic diagnosis was correct in 8 cases, not definitive but consistent with possible neoplasia in 5 cases, and incorrect in 4 cases. Multiple similar-appearing nodules were significantly associated with malignancy, whereas single lesions were more often benign. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Ultrasound-guided aspiration of splenic lesions is a minimally invasive tool for obtaining specimens for cytologic evaluation. Although cytologic diagnoses often reflect histologic results, if missampling or incomplete sampling occurs or tissue architecture is required to distinguish between reactive and neoplastic conditions, accurate diagnosis with fine-needle aspiration may not be possible.
Authors: Cleide H Spröhnle-Barrera; Jayne McGhie; Rachel E Allavena; Helen C Owen; Chiara Palmieri; Tamsin S Barnes Journal: Animals (Basel) Date: 2022-04-08 Impact factor: 3.231
Authors: Cyndi Mangano; Francesco Macrì; Simona Di Pietro; Michela Pugliese; Silvia Santoro; Nicola M Iannelli; Giuseppe Mazzullo; Rosalia Crupi; Massimo De Majo Journal: BMC Vet Res Date: 2019-06-11 Impact factor: 2.741
Authors: Igor Yankin; Sarah Nemanic; Silvia Funes; Helio de Morais; Elena Gorman; Craig Ruaux Journal: J Vet Intern Med Date: 2019-11-06 Impact factor: 3.333
Authors: Marjury Cristina Maronezi; Rafael Kretzer Carneiro; Igor Cezar Kniphoff da Cruz; Ana Paula Luiz de Oliveira; Andrigo Barboza De Nardi; Letícia Pavan; Priscila Del'Aguila-Silva; Ricardo Andrés Ramirez Uscategui; Marcus Antônio Rossi Feliciano Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-03-11 Impact factor: 4.379