Fine needle aspiration Archives - Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia
Summary
Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. 2003;25(2):87-94
DOI 10.1590/S0100-72032003000200003
PURPOSE: to assess the concordance of cytological tumoral and nuclear grading systems on fine needle aspiration biopsies of breast carcinoma with histological specimens and compare them to identify the best results. METHODS: cytohistological agreement was evaluated in a retrospective study of 50 cases of fine needle aspiration biopsies of histologically confirmed invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast, with 5 grading systems being applied for comparative purposes.The classifications were divided according to criteria of tumoral grading (nuclear and architectural criteria - Mouriquand and Guilford systems) and nuclear criteria (Black modified by Fisher (BM), simplified Black system (SB) and Hunt system). The grading systems used for histological analysis were those of Scarff-Bloom-Richardson modified by Elston (SBR modified) for tumor evaluation and the BM systems for nuclear evaluation. RESULT: the cytological grading systems that showed best agreement were BM and SB based on nuclear criteria (anisonucleosis, size, mitosis, and chromatin). Among the cytological grading systems based on nuclear and architectural criteria (combined), Guilford's classification showed the best agreement, possibly due to the larger number of variables used, which permitted a smaller margin of error. CONCLUSION: the methods evaluated in the present study can be considered reasonable as cytological grading systems.
Summary
Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. 2003;25(2):87-94
DOI 10.1590/S0100-72032003000200003
PURPOSE: to assess the concordance of cytological tumoral and nuclear grading systems on fine needle aspiration biopsies of breast carcinoma with histological specimens and compare them to identify the best results. METHODS: cytohistological agreement was evaluated in a retrospective study of 50 cases of fine needle aspiration biopsies of histologically confirmed invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast, with 5 grading systems being applied for comparative purposes.The classifications were divided according to criteria of tumoral grading (nuclear and architectural criteria - Mouriquand and Guilford systems) and nuclear criteria (Black modified by Fisher (BM), simplified Black system (SB) and Hunt system). The grading systems used for histological analysis were those of Scarff-Bloom-Richardson modified by Elston (SBR modified) for tumor evaluation and the BM systems for nuclear evaluation. RESULT: the cytological grading systems that showed best agreement were BM and SB based on nuclear criteria (anisonucleosis, size, mitosis, and chromatin). Among the cytological grading systems based on nuclear and architectural criteria (combined), Guilford's classification showed the best agreement, possibly due to the larger number of variables used, which permitted a smaller margin of error. CONCLUSION: the methods evaluated in the present study can be considered reasonable as cytological grading systems.
Summary
Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. 2001;23(5):321-327
DOI 10.1590/S0100-72032001000500008
Purpose: to determine the relationship between fine needle aspiration cytology guided by ultrasound of nonpalpable breast lesions (cystic or solid masses) with the ultrasound and histopathological features of the biopsy lesions. Methods: a total of 617 nonpalpable lesions were analyzed by ultrasound. Fine needle aspiration cytology was guided by ultrasonography and the cysts were distinguished from the solid masses by comparing the biopsies. The cytologic results were compared with the histological results in the case surgical biopsy was carried out. Results: of the 617 nonpalpable lesions 471 were cysts (451 simple cysts with 100% negative cytology and 20 cases were considered complex cysts; 3 (15%) of these had a positive or suspected cytology and in 2 cases malignancy was confirmed. There were 105 solid masses, 63 of them with negative cytology. Fifty-nine cases had a negative biopsy, and 4 cases (0.3%) were false-negative but all of them presented disagreement between the cytological and image features; in 14 cases (13%) there was a suspected cytology and in 5 of them carcinoma was confirmed; in 14 cases (13%), the samples were insufficient, 1 case was carcinoma and in 51 cases, a triple diagnosis was concordant and the lesions were followed-up. Conclusion: cytological analysis of simple cysts is not required, but when they are complex, cytological analysis is mandatery. In the case of nonpalpable solid masses, cytology must be correlated with ultrasound and mammography features. If the results are discordant, the lesion should be followed-up.
Summary
Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. 2001;23(5):321-327
DOI 10.1590/S0100-72032001000500008
Purpose: to determine the relationship between fine needle aspiration cytology guided by ultrasound of nonpalpable breast lesions (cystic or solid masses) with the ultrasound and histopathological features of the biopsy lesions. Methods: a total of 617 nonpalpable lesions were analyzed by ultrasound. Fine needle aspiration cytology was guided by ultrasonography and the cysts were distinguished from the solid masses by comparing the biopsies. The cytologic results were compared with the histological results in the case surgical biopsy was carried out. Results: of the 617 nonpalpable lesions 471 were cysts (451 simple cysts with 100% negative cytology and 20 cases were considered complex cysts; 3 (15%) of these had a positive or suspected cytology and in 2 cases malignancy was confirmed. There were 105 solid masses, 63 of them with negative cytology. Fifty-nine cases had a negative biopsy, and 4 cases (0.3%) were false-negative but all of them presented disagreement between the cytological and image features; in 14 cases (13%) there was a suspected cytology and in 5 of them carcinoma was confirmed; in 14 cases (13%), the samples were insufficient, 1 case was carcinoma and in 51 cases, a triple diagnosis was concordant and the lesions were followed-up. Conclusion: cytological analysis of simple cysts is not required, but when they are complex, cytological analysis is mandatery. In the case of nonpalpable solid masses, cytology must be correlated with ultrasound and mammography features. If the results are discordant, the lesion should be followed-up.