Diagnostic efficacy of the cell block method in comparison with smear cytology of tissue samples obtained by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration
Purchase on Springer.com
$39.95 / €34.95 / £29.95*
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.
The diagnostic efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) cytology may vary greatly depending on the treatment of the samples obtained and the level of proficiency of the cytopathologist or cytoscreener.
We prospectively evaluated the diagnostic efficacy of the cell block (CB) method and that of smear cytology using tissue samples obtained in the same needle pass at EUS-FNA in 33 patients with pancreatic tumors, abdominal tumors or swollen lymph nodes. An average of 3.1 passes were applied during the procedure without affirmation by rapid cytology. About half of the material obtained by each single pass was subjected to smear cytology, while the other half was evaluated by the CB method. Four to 12 glass slides were prepared for both Papanicolaou stain and Giemsa stain. The CB sections were prepared using the sodium alginate method and subjected to HE, PAS-AB and immunohistochemical stains. Two pathologists independently made cytological and histological diagnoses. The final diagnosis was based on integration of cytohistological findings, diagnostic imaging, and clinical course.
The diagnostic accuracy of the CB method and that of smear cytology were 93.9 and 60.6%, respectively (p = 0.003), and their respective sensitivities were 92.0 and 60.0% (p = 0.02). It was easier to make a definite diagnosis of not only malignancies but also benign conditions by the CB method than by the smear method.
The CB method with immunostaining showed a higher diagnostic yield than smear cytology in patients who had undergone EUS-FNA without rapid on-site cytology.
- Chang KJ, Nguyen P, Erickson RA, Durbin TE, Katz KD. The clinical utility of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration in the diagnosis and staging of pancreatic carcinoma. Gastrointest Endosc. 1997;45:387–93. CrossRef
- Erickson RA, Sayage-Rabie L, Beissner RS. Factors predicting the number of EUS-guided fine-needle passes for diagnosis of pancreatic malignancies. Gastrointest Endosc. 2000;51:184–90. CrossRef
- Yamao K, Ohashi K, Nakamua T, Suzuki T, Watanabe Y. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration. Digestive Endosc. 2000;12:S53–6. CrossRef
- Wallace MB, Kennedy T, Durkalski V, Eloubeidi MA, Etamad R, Matsuda K, et al. Randomized controlled trial of EUS-guided fine needle aspiration techniques for the detection of malignant lymphadenopathy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2001;54:441–7. CrossRef
- Layfield LJ, Bentz JS, Gopez EV. Immediate on-site interpretation of fine-needle aspiration smears. A cost and compensation analysis. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol). 2001;93:319–22.
- Schwartz DA, Unni KK, Levy MJ, Clain JE, Wiersema MJ. The rate of false-positive results with EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration. Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;56:868–72. CrossRef
- Chhieng DC, Benson E, Eltoum I, Eloubeidi MA, Jhala N, Jhala D, et al. MUC1 and MUC2 espression in pancreatic ductal carcinoma obtained by fine-needle aspiration. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol). 2003;99:365–71.
- Klapman JK, Logrono R, Dye CE, Waxman I. Clinical impact of on-site cytopathology interpretation on endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration. Am J Gastroenterol. 2003;98:1289–94. CrossRef
- Ardengh JC, Paulo GA, Ferrari AP. EUS-guided FNA in the diagnosis of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors before surgery. Gastrointest Endosc. 2004;60:378–84. CrossRef
- Volmar KE, Vollmer RT, Jowell PS, Nelson RC, Xie HB. Pancreatic FNA in 1000 cases: a comparison of imaging modalities. Gastrointest Endosc. 2005;61:854–61. CrossRef
- Agarwal B, Krishna NB, Labundy JL, Safdar R, Akduman EI. EUS and/or EUS-guided FNA in patients with CT and/or magnetic resonance imaging findings of enlarged pancreatic head or dilated pancreatic duct with or without a dilated common bile duct. Gastrointest Endosc. 2008;68:237–42. CrossRef
- Michael H, Ho S, Pollack B, Gupta M, Gress F. Diagnosis of intra-abdominal and mediastinal sarcoidosis with EUS-guided FNA. Gastrointest Endosc. 2008;67:28–34. CrossRef
- Basch PF. An alginate matrix double-embedding method for paraffin sectioning of minute specimens. Stain Technol. 1986;61:235–8.
- Guo J, Jourdian GW, Maccallum DK. Culture and growth characteristics of chondrocytes encapsulated in alginate beads. Connect Tissue Res. 1989;19:277–97. CrossRef
- Sano J, Yoshimoto N, Mizoguchi Y, Saito M. Utility of sodium alginate cell block method. J Jpn Soc Clin Cytol. 2005;44:291–7. In Japanese with English abstract.
- Suen KC, Abdul-Karim FW, Kaminsky DB, Layfield LJ, Miller TR, Spires SE, et al. Guidelines of the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology for fine needle aspiration procedure and reporting: the Papanicolau Society of Cytology Task Force on Standards of Practice. Diagn Cytopathol. 1997;17:239–47. CrossRef
- Wiersema MJ, Vilmann P, Giovannini M, Chang KJ, Wiersema LM. ASGE guideline: complications of EUS. Gastrointest Endosc. 2005;61:8–12. CrossRef
- Paquin SC, Gariepy G, Lepanto L, Bourdages R, Raymond G, Sahai AV. A first report of tumor seeding because of EUS-guided FNA of a pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Gastrointest Endosc. 2005;61:610–1. CrossRef
- Doi S, Yasuda I, Iwashita T, Ibuka T, Fukushima H, Akaki H, et al. Needle tract implantation on the esophageal wall after EUS-guided FNA of metastatic mediastinal lymphadenopathy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2008;67:988–90. CrossRef
- Storch I, Jorda M, Thurer R, Raez L, Rocha-Lima C, Vernon S, et al. Advantage of EUS trucut biopsy combined with fine-needle aspiration without immediate on-site cytopathologic examination. Gastrointest Endosc. 2006;64:505–11. CrossRef
- Yasuda I, Tsurumi H, Omar S, Iwashita T, Kojima Y, Yamada T, et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy for lymphadenopathy of unknown origin. Endoscopy. 2006;38:919–24. CrossRef
- Shah SM, Ribeiro A, Levi J, Jorda M, Rocha-Lima C, Sleeman D, et al. EUS-guided fine needle aspiration with and without trucut biopsy of pancreatic masses. J Pancreas. 2008;9:422–30.
- Ardengh JC, Lopes CV, Lima LFP, Venco F, Santo GC, Begnami MD, et al. Cell block technique and cytological smears for the differential diagnosis of pancreatic neoplasms after endosonography-guided fine-needle aspiration. Acta Gastroenterol Latinoam. 2008;38:246–51.
- Ronald AD, Hoda RS. Immunochemistry and molecular biology in cytological diagnosis. In: Koss LG, Melamed MR, editors. Koss’s diagnostic cytology and its histopathologic bases. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2005. p. 1635–80.
- Diagnostic efficacy of the cell block method in comparison with smear cytology of tissue samples obtained by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration
Journal of Gastroenterology
Volume 45, Issue 8 , pp 868-875
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer Japan
- Additional Links
- Cell block
- Smear cytology
- Lymph node
- Industry Sectors
- Yutaka Noda (1)
- Naotaka Fujita (1)
- Go Kobayashi (1)
- Kei Itoh (1)
- Jun Horaguchi (1)
- Osamu Takasawa (1)
- Takashi Obana (1)
- Shinsuke Koshita (1)
- Yoshihide Kanno (1)
- Takashi Suzuki (1)
- Dai Hirasawa (1)
- Toshiki Sugawara (1)
- Tetsuya Ohira (1)
- Yoshihiro Harada (1)
- Takashi Tsuchiya (2)
- Takashi Sawai (3)
- Miwa Uzuki (3)
- Akira Kurose (3)
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Department of Gastroenterology, Sendai City Medical Center, Miyagino-ku, 22-5-1 Tsurugaya, Sendai, 983-0824, Japan
- 2. Department of Surgery, Sendai City Medical Center, Sendai, 983-0824, Japan
- 3. First Department of Pathology, Iwate Medical University, Morioka, 020-8505, Japan