N J L M

 
Subscribe Via RSS
  • Home
  • About
    Salient Features Bibliographic Information Abstracting and Indexing Specialties Covered Publisher Journal Policy
  • Issues
    Current Issue Online Ahead of Print Archive Forthcoming issue
  • Editorial
    Editorial Statements Editorial-PeerReview Process Editorial Board Publication Ethics & Malpractice Join us
  • Authors
    Submit an Article Manuscript Instructions Manuscript Assistance Publication Charges Paid Services Early Online Publication Service
  • Reviewers
    Apply as Reviewer Reviewers Acknowledgment
  • Search
    Simple Search Advanced Search
  • Member
    Register Login
  • Contact
  • Subscription
Original article / research
Year: 2023 Month: April Volume: 12 Issue: 2 Page: PO39 - PO44

Structured Reporting of Lymph Node Cytopathology using the 2020 Sydney System Guidelines-A Retrospective Study

 
Correspondence Sreelekshmi, Jayasree Raman, Tessy Petta Joseph,
Jayasree Raman,
Professor of Pathology, Government of Medical College Ernakulam, Kalamassery Ernakulam-683503, Kerala, India.
E-mail: jayasreeraman2007@gmail.com
:
Introduction: Fine Needle Aspiration Cytology (FNAC) is a valuable diagnostic aid for evaluation of lymph node pathology. The new Sydney System (2020) for classification and reporting of lymph node FNAC has put forth guidelines for a categorical classification using uniform terminology and morphologic criteria, a major step towards standardisation.

Aim: The study was aimed to evaluate cytopathology of lymph node lesions during 2 year period by applying the proposed Sydney system and to assess the category wise Risk Of Malignancy (ROM) by comparing with histopathology diagnosis in available cases.

Materials and Methods: A retrospective observational study was conducted in 2021 December, on lymph node aspirates obtained during two-year period from January 2018 till January 2020 in the department of Pathology of a tertiary care centre. FNAC of 250 lymph node aspirates were evaluated. Smears were reviewed and categorised as per the Sydney System of reporting as, L1: non diagnostic/inadequate, L2: benign, L3: atypical cells/atypical lymphoid cells of undetermined significance, L4: suspicious for malignancy, L5: malignant. The diagnostic accuracy of cytology and ROM in each category was assessed comparing with the gold standard histopathology diagnosis where available.

Results: Category wise distribution of 250 cytological diagnosis of lymphadenopathy reclassified in Sydney system were L1-14 (5.60%); L2-159 (63.60%); L3-04 (1.60%); L4-05 (2%); and L5-68 (27.20%) cases. Using histopathology as gold standard available in 53 cases, the ROM in each category was found to be 0%, 3%, 66.66%, 100% and 100%, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, Positive Predictive Value (PPV), Negative Predictive Value (NPV) and diagnostic accuracy of cytological diagnosis was found to be 95.65%, 96.29%, 95.65%, 96.29% and 96%, respectively. Reactive lymphadenitis in 86 (34.40%) and metastatic carcinoma in 61 (24.40%) cases were the most common benign and malignant lesions respectively.

Conclusion: The Sydney system of structured reporting in lymph node cytology provides a clear-cut terminology, uniformity, and reproducibility of reports. It enhances the role of FNAC by alerting the clinician for follow-up and ancillary studies in atypical and equivocal cases. In the non diagnostic L1 category, repeat procedure or biopsy should be recommended to avoid False Negative (FN) diagnosis.
 
[ FULL TEXT ]   |   [ ]
 
Print
  • Article Utilities

    • Readers Comments (0)
    • Article in PDF
    • Citation Manager
    • Article Statistics
    • Link to PUBMED
    • Print this Article
    • Send to a Friend
    • Go To Issues

      • Current Issue
      • Past Issues
  • Search Articles

    • Simple Search
    • Advance Search
  • Authors Facilities

    • Extensive Author Support
    • Submit Manuscript
    • ONLINE First Facility
    • NJLM Pre Publishing
  • Quick Links

    • REVIEWER
    • ACCESS STATISTICS
  • Users

    • Register
    • Log in
  • Pages

    • About
    • Issues
    • Editorials
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Search
    • Contacts
  • Issues Archives

  • Affiliated Websites

    • JCDR Prepublishing
    • Neonatal Database Home
    • JCDR Neonatal Database download center