OBJECTIVE: To describe the role of sputum and brush cytology in the diagnosis of lung carcinoma and to elucidate the influence of tumor location, histologic tumor type and stage on the sensitivity of both methods. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective and performed on 415 lung cancer patients. Two hundred of them were investigated only by sputum collection, 119 only by brushing and 96 by both methods. RESULTS: The overall sensitivity of the sputum technique was 0.403 and that of the brush method 0.500, while a combination of both showed a sensitivity of 0.640. The diagnostic yield depended on tumor location, histologic tumor type and stage. Sputum specimens were most valuable in the detection of early and peripheral carcinomas, whereas brushing was superior in finding more advanced and centrally located malignancies. Regarding tumor type, squamous cell carcinomas were diagnosed to the greatest extent by both methods. CONCLUSION: A complementary role of both cytologic techniques can be postulated by our data as well as by a literature review.
OBJECTIVE: To describe the role of sputum and brush cytology in the diagnosis of lung carcinoma and to elucidate the influence of tumor location, histologic tumor type and stage on the sensitivity of both methods. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective and performed on 415 lung cancerpatients. Two hundred of them were investigated only by sputum collection, 119 only by brushing and 96 by both methods. RESULTS: The overall sensitivity of the sputum technique was 0.403 and that of the brush method 0.500, while a combination of both showed a sensitivity of 0.640. The diagnostic yield depended on tumor location, histologic tumor type and stage. Sputum specimens were most valuable in the detection of early and peripheral carcinomas, whereas brushing was superior in finding more advanced and centrally located malignancies. Regarding tumor type, squamous cell carcinomas were diagnosed to the greatest extent by both methods. CONCLUSION: A complementary role of both cytologic techniques can be postulated by our data as well as by a literature review.
Authors: Qing Kay Li; Punit Shah; Yan Li; Paul O Aiyetan; Jing Chen; Rex Yung; Daniela Molena; Edward Gabrielson; Frederic Askin; Daniel W Chan; Hui Zhang Journal: J Proteome Res Date: 2013-07-11 Impact factor: 4.466
Authors: Jun Hyeok Lim; Min Jeong Kim; Sang-Hoon Jeon; Mi Hwa Park; Woo Youl Kim; Minkyung Lee; Jun Ho Kim; Jung Soo Kim; Young Sam Kim; Lucia Kim; Kyung-Hee Lee; Seung Min Kwak; Hyekyung Shin; Hae-Seong Nam Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-01-23 Impact factor: 4.379