Role of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration with flow cytometry to diagnose lymphoma: A single center experience

Mohammad Al-Haddad, Mojgan Sara Savabi, Stuart Sherman, Lee McHenry, Julia Leblanc, Harvey Cramer, Robert Emerson, Jillian O'Neil, Mouen Khashab, John Dewitt

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

35 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background and Aim: The use of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) ± flow cytometry (FC) for the diagnosis of suspected lymphoma remains controversial. We report our experience and diagnostic yield for EUS ± FC for suspected lymphoma. Methods: Databases were queried for those who underwent EUS-FNA ± FC for suspected lymphoma. Hospital charts were reviewed to confirm the final cytological diagnosis, follow up and FC results if obtained. The final diagnosis was confirmed by the results of EUS-FNA ± FC, other biopsy and/or follow up. Results: In total, 54 patients underwent EUS-FNA of 72 lesions. The final diagnosis of lymphoma was made in 38 of the 54 (70%) patients, and 33 of the 54 (61%) patients relied on EUS-FNA. Cytopathology in 41 patients using EUS-FNA + FC showed lymphoma in 24 patients, atypical lymphoid cells in six and reactive lymph node in 11. In 9 of the 24 with lymphoma by EUS + FC, the diagnosis was confirmed by another diagnostic modality, like surgery, bone marrow biopsy and computed tomography-guided biopsy. Of the six with atypical lymphoid cells, additional diagnostic methods confirmed lymphoma in three. The remaining 13 of the 54 patients underwent EUS-FNA without FC due to insufficient sample (n = 5) or operator choice (n = 8). Cytopathology in these 13 patients without FC showed lymphoma (9), atypical lymphoid cells (3) and reactive node (1). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy of EUS-FNA for lymphoma in all 54 patients ranged from 80% to 87%, 92% to 93%, 97%, 60% to 75% and 83% to 89%, respectively. Conclusions: EUS-FNA is sensitive and specific for the diagnosis of suspected lymphoma. Confirmatory or further testing should be performed when EUS-FNA with or without FC is indeterminate and or non-diagnostic.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1826-1833
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology (Australia)
Volume24
Issue number12
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 2009

Fingerprint

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration
Lymphoma
Flow Cytometry
Lymphocytes
Biopsy
Lymph Nodes
Bone Marrow
Tomography
Databases

Keywords

  • Endoscopic ultrasound
  • Fine-needle aspiration
  • Lymphoma

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Gastroenterology
  • Hepatology

Cite this

Role of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration with flow cytometry to diagnose lymphoma : A single center experience. / Al-Haddad, Mohammad; Savabi, Mojgan Sara; Sherman, Stuart; McHenry, Lee; Leblanc, Julia; Cramer, Harvey; Emerson, Robert; O'Neil, Jillian; Khashab, Mouen; Dewitt, John.

In: Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology (Australia), Vol. 24, No. 12, 12.2009, p. 1826-1833.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{4a91bfd0fedd4c9090b310faa16bcc56,
title = "Role of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration with flow cytometry to diagnose lymphoma: A single center experience",
abstract = "Background and Aim: The use of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) ± flow cytometry (FC) for the diagnosis of suspected lymphoma remains controversial. We report our experience and diagnostic yield for EUS ± FC for suspected lymphoma. Methods: Databases were queried for those who underwent EUS-FNA ± FC for suspected lymphoma. Hospital charts were reviewed to confirm the final cytological diagnosis, follow up and FC results if obtained. The final diagnosis was confirmed by the results of EUS-FNA ± FC, other biopsy and/or follow up. Results: In total, 54 patients underwent EUS-FNA of 72 lesions. The final diagnosis of lymphoma was made in 38 of the 54 (70{\%}) patients, and 33 of the 54 (61{\%}) patients relied on EUS-FNA. Cytopathology in 41 patients using EUS-FNA + FC showed lymphoma in 24 patients, atypical lymphoid cells in six and reactive lymph node in 11. In 9 of the 24 with lymphoma by EUS + FC, the diagnosis was confirmed by another diagnostic modality, like surgery, bone marrow biopsy and computed tomography-guided biopsy. Of the six with atypical lymphoid cells, additional diagnostic methods confirmed lymphoma in three. The remaining 13 of the 54 patients underwent EUS-FNA without FC due to insufficient sample (n = 5) or operator choice (n = 8). Cytopathology in these 13 patients without FC showed lymphoma (9), atypical lymphoid cells (3) and reactive node (1). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy of EUS-FNA for lymphoma in all 54 patients ranged from 80{\%} to 87{\%}, 92{\%} to 93{\%}, 97{\%}, 60{\%} to 75{\%} and 83{\%} to 89{\%}, respectively. Conclusions: EUS-FNA is sensitive and specific for the diagnosis of suspected lymphoma. Confirmatory or further testing should be performed when EUS-FNA with or without FC is indeterminate and or non-diagnostic.",
keywords = "Endoscopic ultrasound, Fine-needle aspiration, Lymphoma",
author = "Mohammad Al-Haddad and Savabi, {Mojgan Sara} and Stuart Sherman and Lee McHenry and Julia Leblanc and Harvey Cramer and Robert Emerson and Jillian O'Neil and Mouen Khashab and John Dewitt",
year = "2009",
month = "12",
doi = "10.1111/j.1440-1746.2009.06005.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "24",
pages = "1826--1833",
journal = "Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology (Australia)",
issn = "0815-9319",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "12",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Role of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration with flow cytometry to diagnose lymphoma

T2 - A single center experience

AU - Al-Haddad, Mohammad

AU - Savabi, Mojgan Sara

AU - Sherman, Stuart

AU - McHenry, Lee

AU - Leblanc, Julia

AU - Cramer, Harvey

AU - Emerson, Robert

AU - O'Neil, Jillian

AU - Khashab, Mouen

AU - Dewitt, John

PY - 2009/12

Y1 - 2009/12

N2 - Background and Aim: The use of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) ± flow cytometry (FC) for the diagnosis of suspected lymphoma remains controversial. We report our experience and diagnostic yield for EUS ± FC for suspected lymphoma. Methods: Databases were queried for those who underwent EUS-FNA ± FC for suspected lymphoma. Hospital charts were reviewed to confirm the final cytological diagnosis, follow up and FC results if obtained. The final diagnosis was confirmed by the results of EUS-FNA ± FC, other biopsy and/or follow up. Results: In total, 54 patients underwent EUS-FNA of 72 lesions. The final diagnosis of lymphoma was made in 38 of the 54 (70%) patients, and 33 of the 54 (61%) patients relied on EUS-FNA. Cytopathology in 41 patients using EUS-FNA + FC showed lymphoma in 24 patients, atypical lymphoid cells in six and reactive lymph node in 11. In 9 of the 24 with lymphoma by EUS + FC, the diagnosis was confirmed by another diagnostic modality, like surgery, bone marrow biopsy and computed tomography-guided biopsy. Of the six with atypical lymphoid cells, additional diagnostic methods confirmed lymphoma in three. The remaining 13 of the 54 patients underwent EUS-FNA without FC due to insufficient sample (n = 5) or operator choice (n = 8). Cytopathology in these 13 patients without FC showed lymphoma (9), atypical lymphoid cells (3) and reactive node (1). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy of EUS-FNA for lymphoma in all 54 patients ranged from 80% to 87%, 92% to 93%, 97%, 60% to 75% and 83% to 89%, respectively. Conclusions: EUS-FNA is sensitive and specific for the diagnosis of suspected lymphoma. Confirmatory or further testing should be performed when EUS-FNA with or without FC is indeterminate and or non-diagnostic.

AB - Background and Aim: The use of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) ± flow cytometry (FC) for the diagnosis of suspected lymphoma remains controversial. We report our experience and diagnostic yield for EUS ± FC for suspected lymphoma. Methods: Databases were queried for those who underwent EUS-FNA ± FC for suspected lymphoma. Hospital charts were reviewed to confirm the final cytological diagnosis, follow up and FC results if obtained. The final diagnosis was confirmed by the results of EUS-FNA ± FC, other biopsy and/or follow up. Results: In total, 54 patients underwent EUS-FNA of 72 lesions. The final diagnosis of lymphoma was made in 38 of the 54 (70%) patients, and 33 of the 54 (61%) patients relied on EUS-FNA. Cytopathology in 41 patients using EUS-FNA + FC showed lymphoma in 24 patients, atypical lymphoid cells in six and reactive lymph node in 11. In 9 of the 24 with lymphoma by EUS + FC, the diagnosis was confirmed by another diagnostic modality, like surgery, bone marrow biopsy and computed tomography-guided biopsy. Of the six with atypical lymphoid cells, additional diagnostic methods confirmed lymphoma in three. The remaining 13 of the 54 patients underwent EUS-FNA without FC due to insufficient sample (n = 5) or operator choice (n = 8). Cytopathology in these 13 patients without FC showed lymphoma (9), atypical lymphoid cells (3) and reactive node (1). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy of EUS-FNA for lymphoma in all 54 patients ranged from 80% to 87%, 92% to 93%, 97%, 60% to 75% and 83% to 89%, respectively. Conclusions: EUS-FNA is sensitive and specific for the diagnosis of suspected lymphoma. Confirmatory or further testing should be performed when EUS-FNA with or without FC is indeterminate and or non-diagnostic.

KW - Endoscopic ultrasound

KW - Fine-needle aspiration

KW - Lymphoma

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=72149125641&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=72149125641&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1440-1746.2009.06005.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1440-1746.2009.06005.x

M3 - Article

C2 - 19845824

AN - SCOPUS:72149125641

VL - 24

SP - 1826

EP - 1833

JO - Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology (Australia)

JF - Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology (Australia)

SN - 0815-9319

IS - 12

ER -