Effect of different cytopathological grading standards on the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration

• Main Author: MENG Hailun
• Format: Article
• Language: zho
• Published: Editorial Department of Journal of Clinical Hepatology 2021-02-01
• Series: Linchuang Gandanbing Zazhi
• Online Access: http://www.lcgdbzz.org/cn/article/doi/10.3969/j.issn.1001-5256.2021.02.028

ObjectiveTo investigate the effect of different cytopathological grading standards on the efficiency of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. MethodsRelated clinical data and pancreatic cytopathological results were collected from 256 patients with pancreatic space-occupying lesions who underwent EUS-FNA in The First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University from May 2011 to March 2019, and the influencing factors for the diagnostic efficiency of EUS-FNA were analyzed based on surgical pathology and follow-up results. The independent samples t-test or the Mann-Whitney U test was used for comparison of continuous data between two groups, and the chi-square test was used for comparison of categorical data between two groups. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to evaluate the value of different cytopathological grading standards in the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. ResultsA total of 67 patients who were lost to follow-up were excluded, and a total of 189 patients were included in the study. According to the Papanicolaou cytopathological standard, there were 47 cases of heterotypic cells, 25 cases of suspected cancer cells, 20 cases of cancer cells, and 97 cases without tumor cells based on EUS-FNA. A total of 133 patients were confirmed to have pancreatic cancer by postoperative pathology and follow-up results, among whom 52 had no tumor cells, 36 had heterotypic cells, 25 had suspected cancer cells, and 20 had cancer cells based on cytopathological results. EUS-FNA had a true positive rate of 6090% (81 patients) and a false negative rate of 39.10% (52 patients) in the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer; for the 56 patients without pancreatic cancer, EUS-FNA had a false positive rate of 19.64% (11 patients) and a true negative rate of 80.36% (45 patients). EUS-FNA had an area under the ROC curve of 0.643 (95% confidence interval: 0.561-0.724) in the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. In combination with different cytopathological grading standards and with the diagnostic criteria of “the identification of heterotypic cells or suspected cancer cells or cancer cells was considered positive”, “the identification of suspected cancer cells or cancer cells was considered positive”, and “the identification of cancer cells was considered positive”, the results showed that the diagnostic criteria of “the identification of heterotypic cells or suspected cancer cells or cancer cells was considered positive” improved the efficiency of EUS-FNA in the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer, with a sensitivity of 50.38% and a specificity of 75.00%. Among the 189 patients, 13 (6.88%) experienced complications after EUS-FNA, which included hyperamylasemia and abdominal pain. ConclusionThe combination of different cytopathological grading standards can help improve the efficiency of EUS-FNA in the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer.