L J Layfield1, Z W Baloch2, S L Hirschowitz3, E D Rossi4. 1. Department of Pathology and Anatomical Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA. 2. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 3. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, The David Geffen School of Medicine, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 4. Division of Anatomic Pathology and Histology, Catholic University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: No universally accepted classification exists for salivary gland FNA. The proposed Milan System for Reporting Salivary Gland Cytopathology (MSRSGC) offers a uniform classification with management recommendations. We compared FNA diagnoses from a prior study with specific diagnoses with corresponding MSRSGC diagnoses. METHODS: One-hundred and sixty-four cases from a prior cytological study with histological follow-up were re-reviewed by one of the authors and assigned to one of the MSRSGC categories. The original and MSRSCG diagnoses were compared, as were follow-up recommendations. RESULTS: The MSRSGC system classified 29 specimens as non-diagnostic (seven histologically shown to be benign salivary gland, two non-mucinous cysts, 14 sialadenitis, one pleomorphic adenoma, one haemangioma, one lymphoma, one adenoid cystic carcinoma, one squamous carcinoma and one benign lymphoid proliferation). The original study diagnosed these lesions as: seven benign cysts, 15 benign salivary gland tissue, one benign neoplasm and two insufficient for diagnosis. In seven cases, MSRSGC disagreed with original diagnoses and surgical resection showed lesions where optimal follow-up was more consistent with original cytological diagnosis. In 10 cases with disagreement, the MSRSGC was associated with a more appropriate follow-up based on the surgical diagnosis. Malignancy risks for the Milan categories were: non-diagnostic (12%), non-neoplastic (5%), atypia of undetermined significance (19%), neoplasm, benign (5%), neoplasm (40%), suspicious for malignancy (60%) and malignant (93%). CONCLUSION: MSRSGC was comparable with the original reported diagnoses in the majority of cases. Both systems had high accuracy for distinguishing benign from malignant lesions and both were associated with appropriate follow-up in most cases.
INTRODUCTION: No universally accepted classification exists for salivary gland FNA. The proposed Milan System for Reporting Salivary Gland Cytopathology (MSRSGC) offers a uniform classification with management recommendations. We compared FNA diagnoses from a prior study with specific diagnoses with corresponding MSRSGC diagnoses. METHODS: One-hundred and sixty-four cases from a prior cytological study with histological follow-up were re-reviewed by one of the authors and assigned to one of the MSRSGC categories. The original and MSRSCG diagnoses were compared, as were follow-up recommendations. RESULTS: The MSRSGC system classified 29 specimens as non-diagnostic (seven histologically shown to be benign salivary gland, two non-mucinous cysts, 14 sialadenitis, one pleomorphic adenoma, one haemangioma, one lymphoma, one adenoid cystic carcinoma, one squamous carcinoma and one benign lymphoid proliferation). The original study diagnosed these lesions as: seven benign cysts, 15 benign salivary gland tissue, one benign neoplasm and two insufficient for diagnosis. In seven cases, MSRSGC disagreed with original diagnoses and surgical resection showed lesions where optimal follow-up was more consistent with original cytological diagnosis. In 10 cases with disagreement, the MSRSGC was associated with a more appropriate follow-up based on the surgical diagnosis. Malignancy risks for the Milan categories were: non-diagnostic (12%), non-neoplastic (5%), atypia of undetermined significance (19%), neoplasm, benign (5%), neoplasm (40%), suspicious for malignancy (60%) and malignant (93%). CONCLUSION: MSRSGC was comparable with the original reported diagnoses in the majority of cases. Both systems had high accuracy for distinguishing benign from malignant lesions and both were associated with appropriate follow-up in most cases.
Authors: Lucie Dostalova; David Kalfert; Alzbeta Jechova; Vladimir Koucky; Stepan Novak; Martin Kuchar; Michal Zabrodsky; Daniela Novakova Kodetova; Marie Ludvikova; Ivana Kholova; Jan Plzak Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2020-02-27 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Zahra Maleki; Zubair Baloch; Ryan Lu; Khurram Shafique; Sharon J Song; Kartik Viswanathan; Rema A Rao; Holly Lefler; Aisha Fatima; Austin Wiles; Vickie Y Jo; He Wang; Guido Fadda; Celeste N Powers; Syed Z Ali; Liron Pantanowitz; Momin T Siddiqui; Ritu Nayar; Jerzy Klijanienko; Guliz A Barkan; Jeffrey F Krane; Esther D Rossi; Fabiano Callegari; Ivana Kholová; Massimo Bongiovanni; William C Faquin; Marc P Pusztaszeri Journal: Cancer Cytopathol Date: 2019-05-03 Impact factor: 5.284