Home | About CytoJournalEditorial Board | Archived articles | Search CytoJ Articles | Subscribe | Peer review policies | CytoJournal Quiz Cases
  Reviewer corner | Author corner | OA Steward’s corner | CF member’s corner | Join as CF member | Manuscript submission | Open Access (OA) Advocacy
CytoJournal All 'FULL TEXT' in HTML are FREE under "open access" charter of CytoJournal.
To login for downloading any PDF OR to request TOC (Table of Content) by e-mail, please click here
Home Email this page Print this page Small font size Default font size Increase font size Cytopathology Foundation
Navigate Here
 »   Next article
 »   Previous article
 »   Table of Contents

Resource Links
 »   Similar in PUBMED
 »  Search Pubmed for
 »  Search in Google Scholar for
 »   Citation Manager
 »   Access Statistics
 »   Reader Comments
 »   Email Alert *
 »   Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded230    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 11    

Recommend this journal


CytoJournal 2006,  3:25

Rapid assessment of fine needle aspiration and the final diagnosis--how often and why the diagnoses are changed

1 Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA
2 Outpatient Pathology Associates, Sacramento, CA, USA
3 Hospital Pathology Associates, St. Paul, MN, USA
4 Department of Pathology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA

Correspondence Address:
Edward B Stelow
Department of Pathology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.1186/1742-6413-3-25

Rights and Permissions

Background: On-site rapid interpretation (RI) of fine needle aspiration (FNA) has been shown to increase the diagnostic yield of FNA and decrease the need for repeat diagnostic procedures. Because the pathologist interprets only a fraction of the sample and has limited resources available at such times, an occasional RI diagnosis will be changed at the time of the final diagnosis. We investigated how often these changes in diagnoses occur and the possible reasons for the changes. Methods: All cytology reports from 1/1/02 to 12/31/03 from a single institution were reviewed. Cases with RI with discrepant final diagnoses were noted. The discrepant diagnoses were categorized depending on how they were changed. Possible sources for changed diagnoses were noted. Results: Between 1/1/02 and 12/31/03 there were 1368 RIs of FNAs. Of these 80 (5.8%) had discrepancies between the RIs and final diagnoses. Seventy-eight cases had additional slides and/or cell block at time of final diagnosis. 16 cases had ancillary studies available at final diagnosis. Consultant pathologists were used in 7 cases. Different pathologists interpreted the RI and final diagnosis in 31 cases. Conclusion: Although uncommon, discrepancies between RIs and final diagnoses occur 5.8% of the time at our institution. Most commonly, this involves a change of diagnosis from either "non-diagnostic" or "benign" to "malignancy". Although much of this is likely due to the presence of additional material and information at the time of final diagnosis, the number of cases that had different pathologists involved in the RI and final diagnosis suggests that inter-observer variability may also play some role. This data was originally presented at the 2005 meeting of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology in San Antonio, Texas, March, 2005.


Print this article     Email this article

  Site Map | Copyright and Disclaimer
© 2007 - CytoJournal | A journal by Cytopathology Foundation Inc with Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
New version online since 1st July '08
Open Access