Literature DB >> 19404060

Brush cytology for the diagnosis of colorectal cancer.

Richard Brouwer1, Alistair MacDonald, Ronnie Matthews, James Gunn, John R Monson, John E Hartley.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to analyze the results of brush cytology for the diagnosis of colorectal cancer and compare them with the results of endoscopic biopsy and histologic evaluation of the resected specimen.
METHODS: Nine hundred eighteen patients who had brush cytology, endoscopic biopsy, and a definitive resection of a colorectal lesion between 1990 to 2006 were identified from our pathology database.
RESULTS: Cytology alone had a sensitivity of 88.2 percent, a specificity of 94.1 percent, a positive predictive value of 98.6 percent, and a negative predictive value of 61.9 percent for the diagnosis of colorectal cancer. Brush cytology always recognized malignant cells, with a positive predictive value of 100 percent. There was no significant difference between brush cytology and biopsy, which had a sensitivity of 86.9 percent, specificity of 98.1 percent, positive predictive value of 99.5 percent, and a negative predictive value of 60.3 percent. Combining the results of brush cytology and biopsy resulted in a statistically significant increase in sensitivity to 97.4 percent (P < 0.001), a significant increase in the negative predictive value to 88.4 percent (P < 0.001), and a significant reduction in the false-negative rate to 0.03 percent (P < 0.001) for the diagnosis of colorectal cancer.
CONCLUSIONS: Brush cytology is as accurate as endoscopic biopsy for the diagnosis of colorectal cancer, and combining these two diagnostic modalities resulted in a significant improvement in the definitive diagnosis of cancer, which might reduce the need for further biopsy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19404060     DOI: 10.1007/DCR.0b013e3181a0ad44

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum        ISSN: 0012-3706            Impact factor:   4.585


  4 in total

1.  Endorectal ultrasonography, strain elastography and MRI differentiation of rectal adenomas and adenocarcinomas.

Authors:  J E R Waage; S Leh; C Røsler; F Pfeffer; S P Bach; R F Havre; I S Haldorsen; S Ødegaard; G Baatrup
Journal:  Colorectal Dis       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 3.788

2.  Failure of 3 different methods and biopsy sites to diagnose a patient with invasive colorectal cancer: A case report.

Authors:  Daniel Dongiu Kim; Kyle Joseph Litow; Thomas James Lumbra; Mohammad Milhim Masri
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2019-05       Impact factor: 1.817

3.  Sampling error in the diagnosis of colorectal cancer is associated with delay to surgery: a retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Garrett G R J Johnson; Olivia Hershorn; Harminder Singh; Jason Park; Ramzi M Helewa
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2021-11-01       Impact factor: 3.453

Review 4.  Importance of Cytopathologic Diagnosis in Early Cancer Diagnosis in Resource-Constrained Countries.

Authors:  Kavita Yadav; Ian Cree; Andrew Field; Philippe Vielh; Ravi Mehrotra
Journal:  JCO Glob Oncol       Date:  2022-02
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.