دورية أكاديمية
أعرض في EDS

Risk of malignancy and overall survival associated with the diagnostic categories in the World Health Organization Reporting System for Pancreaticobiliary Cytopathology.

التفاصيل البيبلوغرافية
العنوان: Risk of malignancy and overall survival associated with the diagnostic categories in the World Health Organization Reporting System for Pancreaticobiliary Cytopathology.
المؤلفون: Hsiao WY; Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA., Wang Q; Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
المصدر: Cancer cytopathology [Cancer Cytopathol] 2024 Jun 30. Date of Electronic Publication: 2024 Jun 30.
Publication Model: Ahead of Print
نوع المنشور: Journal Article
اللغة: English
بيانات الدورية: Publisher: Wiley-Blackwell Country of Publication: United States NLM ID: 101499453 Publication Model: Print-Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1934-6638 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 1934662X NLM ISO Abbreviation: Cancer Cytopathol Subsets: MEDLINE
أسماء مطبوعة: Original Publication: Hoboken, NJ : Wiley-Blackwell
مستخلص: Background: The World Health Organization (WHO) classification system revised the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology (PSC) system for reporting pancreaticobiliary cytopathology. To better stratify intraductal and/or cystic neoplasms by cytologic grade, the neoplastic, other category was replaced by two new categories: pancreaticobiliary neoplasm, low-risk/grade (PaN-Low) and pancreaticobiliary neoplasm, high-risk/grade (PaN-High). Low-grade malignancies were placed in the malignant category, and benign neoplasms were placed in the benign/negative for malignancy category.
Methods: An institutional pathology database search identified patients who underwent endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for pancreatic lesions from January 2015 to April 2022. The absolute risk of malignancy (ROM) was determined by histologic and/or clinical follow-up of at least 6 months, and overall survival rates were calculated across diagnostic categories, comparing the WHO and PSC systems.
Results: In total, 1012 cases were reviewed and recategorized. The ROM for the WHO system was 8.3% for insufficient/inadequate/nondiagnostic, 3.2% for benign/negative for malignancy, 24.6% for atypical, 9.1% for PaN-Low, 46.7% for PaN-High, 75% for suspicious for malignancy, and 100% for malignant. Comparatively, the ROM for the PSC system was 7.4% for nondiagnostic, 3.0% for negative for malignancy, 23.1% for atypical, 0% for neoplastic, benign, 7.3% for neoplastic, other, 75% for suspicious for malignancy, and 100% for malignant. The WHO system demonstrated superior stratification for overall survival.
Conclusions: The WHO system significantly improves the stratification of ROM and overall survival across diagnostic categories by introducing the PaN-Low and PaN-High categories and reassigning low-grade malignancies to the malignant category. Analyzing EUS-FNA samples with the WHO system provides critical insights for guiding clinical management.
(© 2024 American Cancer Society.)
References: Pitman MB, Deshpande V. Endoscopic ultrasound‐guided fine needle aspiration cytology of the pancreas: a morphological and multimodal approach to the diagnosis of solid and cystic mass lesions. Cytopathology. 2007;18(6):331‐347. doi:10.1111/j.1365‐2303.2007.00457.x.
Shah S, Mortele KJ. Uncommon solid pancreatic neoplasms: ultrasound, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging features. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 2007;28(5):357‐370. doi:10.1053/j.sult.2007.08.002.
Chen J, Yang R, Lu Y, Xia Y, Zhou H. Diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound‐guided fine‐needle aspiration for solid pancreatic lesion: a systematic review. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2012;138(9):1433‐1441. doi:10.1007/s00432‐012‐1268‐1.
Mohammad Alizadeh AH, Shahrokh S, Hadizadeh M, Padashi M, Zali MR. Diagnostic potency of EUS‐guided FNA for the evaluation of pancreatic mass lesions. Endosc Ultrasound. 2016;5(1):30‐34. doi:10.4103/2303‐9027.175879.
Pitman MB, Centeno BA, Ali SZ, et al. Standardized terminology and nomenclature for pancreatobiliary cytology: the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology guidelines. Cytojournal. 2014;11(suppl 1):3. doi:10.4103/1742‐6413.133343.
Adler D, Max Schmidt C, Al‐Haddad M, et al. Clinical evaluation, imaging studies, indications for cytologic study, and preprocedural requirements for duct brushing studies and pancreatic FNA: the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology recommendations for pancreatic and biliary cytology. Diagn Cytopathol. 2014;42(4):325‐332. doi:10.1002/dc.23095.
Pitman MB, Layfield LJ. The Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology System for Reporting Pancreaticobiliary Cytology. Definitions, Criteria and Explanatory Notes. Springer; 2015.
Chen B, Zhao Y, Gu J, Wu H, Liang Z, Meng Z. Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology new guidelines have a greater ability of risk stratification for pancreatic endoscopic ultrasound‐guided fine‐needle aspiration specimens. Oncotarget. 2017;8(5):8154‐8161. doi:10.18632/oncotarget.14105.
Hoda RS, Finer EB, Arpin RN, 3rd, Rosenbaum M, Pitman MB. Risk of malignancy in the categories of the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology System for Reporting Pancreaticobiliary Cytology. J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2019;8(3):120‐127. doi:10.1016/j.jasc.2019.01.002.
Layfield LJ, Dodd L, Factor R, Schmidt RL. Malignancy risk associated with diagnostic categories defined by the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology pancreaticobiliary guidelines. Cancer Cytopathol. 2014;122(6):420‐427. doi:10.1002/cncy.21386.
Sung S, Del Portillo A, Gonda TA, Kluger MD, Tiscornia‐Wasserman PG. Update on risk stratification in the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology System for Reporting Pancreaticobiliary Cytology categories: 3‐year, prospective, single‐institution experience. Cancer Cytopathol. 2020;128(1):29‐35. doi:10.1002/cncy.22199.
Pitman MB, Centeno BA, Daglilar ES, Brugge WR, Mino‐Kenudson M. Cytological criteria of high‐grade epithelial atypia in the cyst fluid of pancreatic intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms. Cancer Cytopathol. 2014;122(1):40‐47. doi:10.1002/cncy.21344.
International Academy of Cytology (IAC)‐International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)‐World Health Organization (WHO) Joint Editorial Board. WHO Reporting System for Pancreaticobiliary Cytopathology. 1st ed, Volume 2. IARC; 2022.
Pitman MB, Centeno BA, Reid MD, et al. A brief review of the WHO Reporting System for Pancreaticobiliary Cytopathology. J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2023;12(4):243‐250. doi:10.1016/j.jasc.2023.03.002.
Pitman MB, Centeno BA, Reid MD, et al. The World Health Organization Reporting System for Pancreaticobiliary Cytopathology. Acta Cytol. 2023;67(3):304‐320. doi:10.1159/000527912.
WHO Classification of Tumours Editorial Board. Digestive System Tumours. WHO Classification of Tumours. 5th ed, Volume 1. International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2019.
Hoda RS, Arpin RN 3rd, Rosenbaum MW, Pitman MB. Risk of malignancy associated with diagnostic categories of the proposed World Health Organization International System for Reporting Pancreaticobiliary Cytopathology. Cancer Cytopathol. 2022;130(3):195‐201. doi:10.1002/cncy.22514.
Gocun PU, Simsek B, Ekinci O, et al. Risk of malignancy using the diagnostic categories proposed by the World Health Organization International System for Reporting Pancreaticobiliary Cytopathology. Acta Cytol. 2022;66(6):475‐485. doi:10.1159/000525276.
Kundu R, Kollabathula A, Gupta N, et al. The WHO system versus the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology system for reporting pancreaticobiliary cytology for risk stratification—which is better? Diagn Cytopathol. 2023;52(3):145‐155. doi:10.1002/dc.25258.
Lui SK, Hargett I, Pharaa Z, et al. The World Health Organization classification of pancreaticobiliary cytopathology stratifies risk of malignancy and outcome for endoscopic ultrasound‐guided fine‐needle aspiration of the pancreas. Cancer Cytopathol. 2023;131(12):762‐771. doi:10.1002/cncy.22754.
Wang Q, Reid MD. Cytopathology of solid pancreatic neoplasms: an algorithmic approach to diagnosis. Cancer Cytopathol. 2022;130(7):491‐510. doi:10.1002/cncy.22597.
Siddiqui AA, Kowalski TE, Shahid H, et al. False‐positive EUS‐guided FNA cytology for solid pancreatic lesions. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;74(3):535‐540. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2011.04.039.
Luu TT. Review of immunohistochemistry biomarkers in pancreatic cancer diagnosis. Front Oncol. 2021;11:799025. doi:10.3389/fonc.2021.799025.
Mikata R, Yasui S, Kishimoto T, et al. Diagnostic value of IMP3 and p53 immunohistochemical staining in EUS‐guided fine‐needle aspiration for solid pancreatic tumors. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):17257. doi:10.1038/s41598‐021‐96492‐4.
Sun T, Gilani S, Jain D, Cai G. Cytomorphologic, immunophenotypical and molecular features of pancreatic acinar cell carcinoma. Diagn Cytopathol. 2023;51(11):674‐683. doi:10.1002/dc.25196.
Sigel CS, Klimstra DS. Cytomorphologic and immunophenotypical features of acinar cell neoplasms of the pancreas. Cancer Cytopathol. 2013;121(8):459‐470. doi:10.1002/cncy.21279.
فهرسة مساهمة: Keywords: World Health Organization (WHO) reporting system; cytopathology; endoscopic ultrasound‐guided fine‐needle aspiration (EUS‐FNA); overall survival; pancreas; risk of malignancy (ROM)
تواريخ الأحداث: Date Created: 20240630 Latest Revision: 20240630
رمز التحديث: 20240630
DOI: 10.1002/cncy.22880
PMID: 38944695
قاعدة البيانات: MEDLINE
الوصف
تدمد:1934-6638
DOI:10.1002/cncy.22880