Literature DB >> 31809004

The Milan System at Memorial Sloan Kettering: Utility of the categorization system for in-house salivary gland fine-needle aspiration cytology at a comprehensive cancer center.

Daniel Lubin1, Darren Buonocore2, Xiao-Jun Wei2, Jean-Marc Cohen2, Oscar Lin2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The Milan System for Reporting Salivary Gland Cytopathology (MSRSGC) provides a standardized reporting system for salivary gland fine-needle aspiration (SGFNA). We review the clinical utility of the MSRSGC at a tertiary care cancer center by assessing the rates of malignancy (ROM) among different categories.
METHODS: A retrospective search was performed to retrieve all SGFNA cases performed at our institution between 1/1/07 and 12/31/18. The initial primary diagnoses were recorded and cases were then assigned to appropriate MSRSGC categories. ROM was then calculated for all categories.
RESULTS: A total of 976 cases were identified, and 373 with follow-up. The ROM was 19.7% (192/976) for all-comers and 51.3% (192/374) among cases with follow-up. Using MSRSGC, SGFNA showed a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of 65.6%, 87.4%, 100%, and 72.6%, respectively. ROM for MSRSGC categories I, II, III, IVa, IVb, V, and VI were 20.7%, 30.0%, 45.8%, 3.3%, 50.7%, 100%, and 100%, respectively. Utilizing MSRSGC resulted in a nondiagnostic rate of 14.4%. The nondiagnostic rate was lower when the procedure was performed by pathologists vs nonpathologists (12.9% vs 15.8%) but was comparable when rapid on site evaluation (ROSE) was performed (12.9% vs 11.6%).
CONCLUSION: In our patient population, MSRSGC resulted in a perfect PPV and moderate NPV. Utilizing MSRSGC results in a higher nondiagnostic rate due to the inclusion of cases with benign elements or cyst contents only in this category. Performing ROSE is more important in attaining an adequate sample than the specialty of the person performing SGFNA.
© 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Milan system for reporting salivary gland cytopathology; fine-needle aspiration; salivary gland

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31809004      PMCID: PMC7493415          DOI: 10.1002/dc.24350

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Diagn Cytopathol        ISSN: 1097-0339            Impact factor:   1.582


  15 in total

Review 1.  Fine-needle sampling of salivary gland lesions. IV. Review of 50 cases of mucoepidermoid carcinoma with histologic correlation.

Authors:  J Klijanienko; P Vielh
Journal:  Diagn Cytopathol       Date:  1997-08       Impact factor: 1.582

2.  The role of the Milan System for Reporting Salivary Gland Cytopathology: A 5-year institutional experience.

Authors:  Kartik Viswanathan; Simon Sung; Theresa Scognamiglio; Grace C H Yang; Momin T Siddiqui; Rema A Rao
Journal:  Cancer Cytopathol       Date:  2018-05-24       Impact factor: 5.284

3.  The Milan System for Reporting Salivary Gland Cytopathology: Analysis and suggestions of initial survey.

Authors:  Esther Diana Rossi; William C Faquin; Zubair Baloch; Güliz A Barkan; Maria Pia Foschini; Marc Pusztaszeri; Philippe Vielh; Daniel F I Kurtycz
Journal:  Cancer Cytopathol       Date:  2017-07-14       Impact factor: 5.284

4.  The rising incidence of major salivary gland cancer in the United States.

Authors:  Anthony G Del Signore; Uchechukwu C Megwalu
Journal:  Ear Nose Throat J       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 1.697

5.  Cost efficiency analysis for fine-needle aspiration in the workup of parotid and submandibular gland nodules.

Authors:  Lester J Layfield; Evelyn Gopez; Sharon Hirschowitz
Journal:  Diagn Cytopathol       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 1.582

6.  Patterns of lymph node metastasis and the management of neck dissection for parotid carcinomas: a single-institute experience.

Authors:  Tsuyoshi Jinnin; Ryo Kawata; Masaaki Higashino; Shuji Nishikawa; Tetsuya Terada; Shin-Ichi Haginomori
Journal:  Int J Clin Oncol       Date:  2019-02-09       Impact factor: 3.402

7.  Algorithm for cytological diagnosis of nonneoplastic lesions of the salivary glands.

Authors:  Purnima Malhotra; Vinod K Arora; Navjeevan Singh; Arati Bhatia
Journal:  Diagn Cytopathol       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 1.582

Review 8.  Reporting of fine needle aspiration (FNA) specimens of salivary gland lesions: A comprehensive review.

Authors:  Shuanzeng Wei; Lester J Layfield; Virginia A LiVolsi; Kathleen T Montone; Zubair W Baloch
Journal:  Diagn Cytopathol       Date:  2017-03-31       Impact factor: 1.582

9.  Impact on clinical follow-up of the Milan System for salivary gland cytology: A comparison with a traditional diagnostic classification.

Authors:  L J Layfield; Z W Baloch; S L Hirschowitz; E D Rossi
Journal:  Cytopathology       Date:  2018-06-12       Impact factor: 2.073

10.  The impact of FNAC in the management of salivary gland lesions: Institutional experiences leading to a risk-based classification scheme.

Authors:  Esther Diana Rossi; Lawrence Q Wong; Tommaso Bizzarro; Gianluigi Petrone; Antonio Mule; Guido Fadda; Zubair M Baloch
Journal:  Cancer Cytopathol       Date:  2016-03-09       Impact factor: 5.284

View more
  3 in total

1.  The Milan system for reporting salivary gland cytopathology: The clinical impact so far. Considerations from theory to practice.

Authors:  Esther Diana Rossi; William C Faquin
Journal:  Cytopathology       Date:  2020-05       Impact factor: 2.073

2.  Putting morphology to the test: An established classification scheme reliably stratifies salivary gland cytology by risk of malignancy with substantial interobserver agreement.

Authors:  Daniel J Lubin; Christopher C Griffith; Darren J Buonocore; Xiao-Jun Wei; Oscar Lin
Journal:  Cancer Cytopathol       Date:  2020-11-02       Impact factor: 5.284

3.  A multi-institutional study of salivary gland cytopathology: Application of the Milan System for Reporting Salivary Gland Cytopathology in Japan.

Authors:  Kayoko Higuchi; Makoto Urano; Jun Akiba; Miwako Nogami; Yukiya Hirata; Yoko Zukeran; Koki Moriyoshi; Yuichiro Tada; Mana Fukushima; Mariko Obayashi; Shinnichi Sakamoto; Kazuya Kuraoka; Kana Kira; Akihiko Kawahara; Taku Kato; Maki Tanigawa; Masato Nakaguro; Hidetaka Yamamoto; Toshitaka Nagao
Journal:  Cancer Cytopathol       Date:  2021-09-03       Impact factor: 4.264

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.