BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of pancreatic tumors is often complicated because of sampling and interpretive challenges. The current study was performed to determine the rates, types, and causes of diagnostic discrepancies. METHODS: The authors retrospectively reviewed cytology cases from 2004 to 2010 using matched surgical resection cases as the gold standard. RESULTS: A total of 733 cases were divided into 3 categories: 1) positive or suspicious (290 cases); 2) negative or atypical (403 cases); and 3) unsatisfactory (40 cases). Of these cases, 101 fine-needle aspiration (FNA) cases had matched surgical resections including 58 positive diagnoses, 39 negative diagnoses, and 4 unsatisfactory diagnoses. All 19 discrepant cases represented false-negative diagnoses without any false-positive cases noted, which included 2 cases with interpretive errors (10%) and 17 cases with sampling errors (90%). All matched cytology cases were divided into 5 subgroups based on the type of lesion or type of error and were analyzed for sensitivity and specificity. The sampling error rate in cystic lesions (8 of 24; 33%) was significantly higher than that in solid lesions (9 of 73; 12%). The false-negative rate in the interpretive error group (3%) was significantly lower than that in the sampling error group (23%). CONCLUSIONS: The results of the current study confirm that pancreatic endoscopic ultrasound-guided FNA diagnosis has a very low false-positive rate but a relatively high false-negative rate using matched surgical resections as the gold standard. The major cause of a false-negative cytology diagnosis is sampling error and the rate of sampling error in cystic lesions is significantly higher than that in solid lesions.
BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of pancreatic tumors is often complicated because of sampling and interpretive challenges. The current study was performed to determine the rates, types, and causes of diagnostic discrepancies. METHODS: The authors retrospectively reviewed cytology cases from 2004 to 2010 using matched surgical resection cases as the gold standard. RESULTS: A total of 733 cases were divided into 3 categories: 1) positive or suspicious (290 cases); 2) negative or atypical (403 cases); and 3) unsatisfactory (40 cases). Of these cases, 101 fine-needle aspiration (FNA) cases had matched surgical resections including 58 positive diagnoses, 39 negative diagnoses, and 4 unsatisfactory diagnoses. All 19 discrepant cases represented false-negative diagnoses without any false-positive cases noted, which included 2 cases with interpretive errors (10%) and 17 cases with sampling errors (90%). All matched cytology cases were divided into 5 subgroups based on the type of lesion or type of error and were analyzed for sensitivity and specificity. The sampling error rate in cystic lesions (8 of 24; 33%) was significantly higher than that in solid lesions (9 of 73; 12%). The false-negative rate in the interpretive error group (3%) was significantly lower than that in the sampling error group (23%). CONCLUSIONS: The results of the current study confirm that pancreatic endoscopic ultrasound-guided FNA diagnosis has a very low false-positive rate but a relatively high false-negative rate using matched surgical resections as the gold standard. The major cause of a false-negative cytology diagnosis is sampling error and the rate of sampling error in cystic lesions is significantly higher than that in solid lesions.
Authors: Tatsuo Hata; Marco Dal Molin; Seung-Mo Hong; Koji Tamura; Masaya Suenaga; Jun Yu; Hiraku Sedogawa; Matthew J Weiss; Christopher L Wolfgang; Anne Marie Lennon; Ralph H Hruban; Michael G Goggins Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2017-02-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Tatsuo Hata; Marco Dal Molin; Masaya Suenaga; Jun Yu; Meredith Pittman; Matthew Weiss; Marcia I Canto; Christopher Wolfgang; Anne Marie Lennon; Ralph H Hruban; Michael Goggins Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2016-05-26 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Ajay V Maker; Silvia Carrara; Nigel B Jamieson; Mario Pelaez-Luna; Anne Marie Lennon; Marco Dal Molin; Aldo Scarpa; Luca Frulloni; William R Brugge Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2014-11-06 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Shounak Majumder; William R Taylor; Tracy C Yab; Calise K Berger; Brian A Dukek; Xiaoming Cao; Patrick H Foote; Chung Wah Wu; Douglas W Mahoney; Harry R Aslanian; Carlos Fernández-Del Castillo; Leona A Doyle; James J Farrell; William E Fisher; Linda S Lee; Yvonne N Lee; Walter Park; Clifton Rodrigues; Bonnie Elyssa Gould Rothberg; Ronald R Salem; Diane M Simeone; Sumithra Urs; George Van Buren; Thomas C Smyrk; Hatim T Allawi; Graham P Lidgard; Massimo Raimondo; Suresh T Chari; Michael L Kendrick; John B Kisiel; Mark D Topazian; David A Ahlquist Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2019-09 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Lawrence Mj Best; Vishal Rawji; Stephen P Pereira; Brian R Davidson; Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2017-04-17
Authors: A Aziz Aadam; Young S Oh; Vinod B Shidham; Abdul Khan; Bryan Hunt; Nagarjun Rao; Ying Zhang; Sergey Tarima; Kulwinder S Dua Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2015-09-07 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: Adriana N López-Ramírez; Lidia F Villegas-González; Mónica L Serrano-Arévalo; Lorena Flores-Hernández; Leonardo S Lino-Silva; Ludwig E González-Mena Journal: J Gastrointest Oncol Date: 2018-10