Skip to main content
main-content

01.12.2017 | Research | Ausgabe 1/2017 Open Access

Diagnostic Pathology 1/2017

Diagnostic accuracy of oral cancer cytology in a pilot study

Zeitschrift:
Diagnostic Pathology > Ausgabe 1/2017
Autoren:
Joji Sekine, Eiji Nakatani, Katsumi Hideshima, Teruaki Iwahashi, Hiroshi Sasaki

Abstract

Background

Recently, cytology has been applied to the diagnosis of oral lesions. We aimed to explore the diagnostic accuracy of oral cytology based on the histological diagnosis.

Methods

Histological diagnoses of 327 cases were classified as Negative, Borderline lesion –, Borderline lesion +, oral intraepithelial neoplasia/carcinoma in situ (OIN/CIS), or Positive. Cytological diagnoses were classified as NILM (negative for intraepithelial lesion or malignancy), LSIL (low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion), HSIL (high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion), or SCC (squamous cell carcinoma). The cytology slides were evaluated by 10 raters and the results were compared with the histology results.

Results

In 142 cases that were histologically negative, the number of NILM, LSIL, HSIL, and SCC and other malignancy was 77 (54.2%), 47 (34.3%), 8 (5.6%), and 10 (7.0%), respectively. Among 32 cases of Borderline lesion –, the number of NILM, LSIL, HSIL, and SCC and other malignancy was 11 (34.3%), 11 (34.3%), 9 (28.1%), and 1 (3.1%), respectively. Also, in 4 cases of Borderline lesion +, the number of NILM, LSIL, HSIL, and SCC and other malignancy was 2 (50.0%), 0 (0.0%), 0 (0.0%), 2 (50.0%), respectively. Among 12 cases of OIN/CIS, the number of NILM, LSIL, HSIL, and SCC and other malignancy was 1 (8.3%), 2 (16.7%), 4 (33.3%), and 5 cases (41.7%), respectively. Among 137 cases with a histological diagnosis of Positive, the number of NILM, LSIL, HSIL, and SCC and other malignancy was 7 (5.1%), 22 (16.1%), 19 (13.9%), and 89 (65.0%), respectively. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive and negative predictive values were 93.5, 50.6, 62.4, and 89.8%, respectively, when the cytological diagnosis of Negative was assumed to be NILM; they were 77.8, 83.9, 81.0 and 81.1%, respectively, if the cytological diagnosis of Negative was assumed to be NILM and LSIL. The number of false-positive and false-negative diagnosis affected cases with LSIL and HSIL may indicate the difficulty in the cytological diagnosis of borderline lesions. While the negative predictive value was relatively high (89.8%) when cytological Negative was assumed to be NILM only.

Conclusion

Histopathological examination should be recommended in cases with cytological diagnoses of LSIL, HSIL, and SCC.
Literatur
Über diesen Artikel

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2017

Diagnostic Pathology 1/2017 Zur Ausgabe

Neu im Fachgebiet Pathologie

14.03.2019 | Originalien | Ausgabe 2/2019

Medikamentennachweise bei bayerischen Altenheimbewohnern – eine rechtsmedizinische Analyse

Erste Ergebnisse aus Screeninguntersuchungen an Urinproben

07.03.2019 | Mammakarzinom | CME | Ausgabe 2/2019

Update der S3-Leitlinie Mammakarzinom

Was gibt es Neues für Pathologen?

21.02.2019 | Schwerpunkt: Neuropathologie | Ausgabe 2/2019

Neuropathologie der Medulloblastome und anderer embryonaler Tumoren des ZNS

Präzisierung der Diagnostik durch Integration genetischer Marker