Andrea Ciofalo1, Carlo Cavaliere2, Cristoforo Incorvaia3, Michaela Plath4, Erminia Ridolo5, Francesco Pucciarini5, Giancarlo Altissimi1, Antonio Greco1, Marco de Vincentiis6, Simonetta Masieri6. 1. Department of Sense Organs, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy. 2. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Sciences, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy. carlo.cavaliere@uniroma1.it. 3. Cardiac/Pulmonary Rehabilitation, ASST Pini-CTO, Milan, Italy. 4. Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. 5. Medicine and Surgery Department, University of Parma, Parma, Italy. 6. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Sciences, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Nasal pathologies are characterized by a symptomatology that hardly allows to distinguish allergic rhinitis (AR), non-allergic rhinitis (NAR), and chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). Nasal cytology (NC) has shown increasing importance in helping the clinician to differentiate the various phenotypes of rhinitis. NC allows us to evaluate nasal cellularity by distinguishing AR and various types of NAR. The objective of the study is to assess the diagnostic performance of the NC by evaluating its sensitivity, specificity, and predictive value. METHODS: We recruited 387 patients with persistent rhinitis symptoms, and nasal cytology was performed. The rhinocytogram was obtained by reading for fields and the cellular count was made using quantitative and semi-quantitative grading together. RESULTS: Two hundred and fifteen patients (55.5%; 38 had acute rhinitis, 24 acute sinusitis, 153 chronic rhinosinusitis) out of 387 referred nasal symptoms. Cytological specimen showed a mean of 94 ± 4% ciliated cells, 29 ± 0.2% mucinous cells, 16 ± 0.1% neutrophils, 11 ± 0.08% eosinophils, 4 ± 0.03 lymphocytes, 4 ± 0.03% mast cells, and 4 ± 0.01% other cells. NC was positive in 271 cases (70%). After revision of medical history, 153 patients (39%) were considered positive for NAR. Test sensibility was 100% (95% CI 97-100), specificity was 49.6% (95% CI 43-56%). Positive predictive value (PPV) was 56% (95% CI 50-62%), and negative predictive value (NPV) was 100% (95% CI 96-100%). The positive likelihood ratio was 1.98 (95% CI 1.75-2.25). Accuracy of the test was 69.5% (95% CI 64.6-74.0%). CONCLUSION: Our data showed ability to identify the true-positive patients with NAR but a low ability to identify the true-negative patients, with a global accuracy of 69.5%.
PURPOSE: Nasal pathologies are characterized by a symptomatology that hardly allows to distinguish allergic rhinitis (AR), non-allergic rhinitis (NAR), and chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). Nasal cytology (NC) has shown increasing importance in helping the clinician to differentiate the various phenotypes of rhinitis. NC allows us to evaluate nasal cellularity by distinguishing AR and various types of NAR. The objective of the study is to assess the diagnostic performance of the NC by evaluating its sensitivity, specificity, and predictive value. METHODS: We recruited 387 patients with persistent rhinitis symptoms, and nasal cytology was performed. The rhinocytogram was obtained by reading for fields and the cellular count was made using quantitative and semi-quantitative grading together. RESULTS: Two hundred and fifteen patients (55.5%; 38 had acute rhinitis, 24 acute sinusitis, 153 chronic rhinosinusitis) out of 387 referred nasal symptoms. Cytological specimen showed a mean of 94 ± 4% ciliated cells, 29 ± 0.2% mucinous cells, 16 ± 0.1% neutrophils, 11 ± 0.08% eosinophils, 4 ± 0.03 lymphocytes, 4 ± 0.03% mast cells, and 4 ± 0.01% other cells. NC was positive in 271 cases (70%). After revision of medical history, 153 patients (39%) were considered positive for NAR. Test sensibility was 100% (95% CI 97-100), specificity was 49.6% (95% CI 43-56%). Positive predictive value (PPV) was 56% (95% CI 50-62%), and negative predictive value (NPV) was 100% (95% CI 96-100%). The positive likelihood ratio was 1.98 (95% CI 1.75-2.25). Accuracy of the test was 69.5% (95% CI 64.6-74.0%). CONCLUSION: Our data showed ability to identify the true-positive patients with NAR but a low ability to identify the true-negative patients, with a global accuracy of 69.5%.
Authors: Gabriele Di Lorenzo; Maria Luisa Pacor; Emanuele Amodio; Maria Stefania Leto-Barone; Simona La Piana; Alberto D'Alcamo; Vito Ditta; Nicola Martinelli; Danilo Di Bona Journal: Int Arch Allergy Immunol Date: 2011-02-02 Impact factor: 2.749
Authors: F Frati; C Incorvaia; C Cavaliere; G Di Cara; F Marcucci; S Esposito; S Masieri Journal: J Biol Regul Homeost Agents Date: 2018 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 1.711
Authors: A Koskinen; J Numminen; A Markkola; J Karjalainen; T Karstila; M Seppälä; A Julkunen; R Lemmetyinen; J Pekkanen; M Rautiainen; P Dastidar; M Hytönen; S Toppila-Salmi Journal: Am J Rhinol Allergy Date: 2018-04-12 Impact factor: 2.467
Authors: Jan L Brożek; Jean Bousquet; Ioana Agache; Arnav Agarwal; Claus Bachert; Sinthia Bosnic-Anticevich; Romina Brignardello-Petersen; G Walter Canonica; Thomas Casale; Niels H Chavannes; Jaime Correia de Sousa; Alvaro A Cruz; Carlos A Cuello-Garcia; Pascal Demoly; Mark Dykewicz; Itziar Etxeandia-Ikobaltzeta; Ivan D Florez; Wytske Fokkens; Joao Fonseca; Peter W Hellings; Ludger Klimek; Sergio Kowalski; Piotr Kuna; Kaja-Triin Laisaar; Désirée E Larenas-Linnemann; Karin C Lødrup Carlsen; Peter J Manning; Eli Meltzer; Joaquim Mullol; Antonella Muraro; Robyn O'Hehir; Ken Ohta; Petr Panzner; Nikolaos Papadopoulos; Hae-Sim Park; Gianni Passalacqua; Ruby Pawankar; David Price; John J Riva; Yetiani Roldán; Dermot Ryan; Behnam Sadeghirad; Boleslaw Samolinski; Peter Schmid-Grendelmeier; Aziz Sheikh; Alkis Togias; Antonio Valero; Arunas Valiulis; Erkka Valovirta; Matthew Ventresca; Dana Wallace; Susan Waserman; Magnus Wickman; Wojtek Wiercioch; Juan José Yepes-Nuñez; Luo Zhang; Yuan Zhang; Mihaela Zidarn; Torsten Zuberbier; Holger J Schünemann Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 2017-06-08 Impact factor: 10.793