Labelling errors in fine needle aspiration cytology
Labelling errors in fine needle aspiration cytology
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/cyt.12264
复制
发表时间：
2016-08
期刊：
影响因子：
1.3
通讯作者：
M. Khanlari;Y. Daneshbod;H. Shaterzadeh Yazdi;S. Shirian;S. Negahban;A. Aledavood;A. Oryan;B. Khademi;K. Daneshbod;A. Field
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
M. Khanlari;Y. Daneshbod;H. Shaterzadeh Yazdi;S. Shirian;S. Negahban;A. Aledavood;A. Oryan;B. Khademi;K. Daneshbod;A. Field
亲爱的编辑，临床医生要求细胞病理学家对特定部位或器官进行取样，但有时细胞学结果与临床医生的目标器官不一致。是细胞病理学家或介入放射科医生错过了“要求的部位”，还是临床医生错误地识别了受累的器官？目前还没有研究集中在请求医生的靶器官和最终的细针穿刺细胞学（FNAC）诊断之间的不一致。这种不一致的比率将随订购FNAC的从业者的专业知识而变化。这些错误可能对细胞学特征的解释产生影响，从而对诊断和随后的管理产生影响。为了回答这个问题，我们使用关键词：唾液腺、头、颈、FNAC和细胞学，检索了伊朗南部和澳大利亚多个机构2001 - 2011年的细胞学档案数据库。研究共纳入10,200份头颈部浅表FNAC样本（2700份来自澳大利亚的一个中心，7500份来自伊朗的三个中心）。对所有摘录的报告进行了审查。临床医生在FNAC申请表上对受病器官的印象与最终诊断不一致的报告从所有有争议的报告中选出。细胞病理学家和内科医生为做出最终诊断而进行的进一步调查，在现有记录中进行了回顾。临床病理资料证实了细胞学诊断。
Dear Editor, Cytopathologists are requested by clinicians to sample a particular site or organ, but on some occasions the cytological findings are not compatible with the clinician’s target organ. Has the cytopathologist or interventional radiologist missed the ‘requested site’ or did the clinician recognise the involved organ incorrectly? There are no studies focused on the discordance between the requesting physician’s target organ and the final fine needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) diagnosis. The rate of this discordance will vary with the expertise of the practitioner ordering the FNAC. These errors may have an impact on the interpretation of the cytological features with a diagnostic and subsequently a management impact. In order to answer this question, the cytology archive database of multiple institutions in southern Iran and Australia, covering the period 2001 to 2011, were searched using the keywords: salivary gland, head, neck, FNAC and cytology. The total number of 10,200 head and neck superficial FNAC samples were included in the study (2700 from one centre in Australia and 7500 from three centres in Iran). All the extracted reports were reviewed. The reports that showed discordance between the clinician’s impression of the involved organ on the FNAC request form and the eventual diagnoses were selected from the total controversial reports. Further investigations performed by the cytopathologist and physicians to make the final diagnoses, were reviewed in available records. The cytological diagnoses were confirmed by clinicopathological data.