No abstract

No abstract

Context.—We use data from the College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Nongynecologic Cytology to identify common diagnostic errors in salivary gland fine-needle aspiration (FNA). Objective.—To identify salivary gland FNA cases with poor performance characteristics in the Nongynecologic Cytology Program surveys, so that the most common diagnostic pitfalls can be avoided. Design.—A retrospective review of the College of American Pathologists Nongynecologic Cytology Program's cumulative data from 1999 to 2003 revealed the most common false-positive and false-negative interpretations on FNA for common salivary gland lesions. Slides that performed poorly were then reviewed to identify the cytologic characteristics that may have contributed to their poor performance. Results.—A total of 6249 participant responses with general interpretations of benign (n = 4642) or malignant (n= 1607) were reviewed. The sensitivity and specificity of the participant responses for correctly interpreting the cases as benign or malignant were 73% and 91%, respectively. Benign cases with the highest false-positive rates were monomorphic adenoma (53% false-positive), intraparotid lymph node (36%), oncocytoma (18%), and granulomatous sialadenitis (10%). Malignant cases with the highest false-negative rates were lymphoma (57%), acinic cell carcinoma (49%), low-grade mucoepidermoid carcinoma (43%), and adenoid cystic carcinoma (33%). Selected review of the most discordant individual cases revealed possible explanations for some of the interpretative errors. Conclusions.—These data confirm the difficulty associated with interpretation of salivary gland FNA specimens. Cytologists should be aware of the potential false-positive and false-negative interpretations that can occur in FNAs from this organ site in order to minimize the possibility of diagnostic errors.

No abstract

A b s t r a c t Bone marrow cultures (BMCs) and blood cultures (BCs) are frequently obtained in the evaluation of fever of unknown origin (FUO).Bone marrow cultures (BMCs) are commonly obtained in the evaluation of fever of unknown origin (FUO), particularly for patients who are immunosuppressed. In the effort to identify the cause of systemic infection, BMCs are often performed in conjunction with blood cultures (BCs) and cultures of other body fluids and tissues. The tradition of performing BMC and BC is long-standing, but the medical necessity is questionable. Given the importance of cost containment, such practices must be assessed on the basis of their cost-benefit to patient outcomes. We compared the value of BMC with BC and studied the usefulness of the histopathologic features of bone marrow trephine biopsy specimens in detecting the cause of systemic infection in an unselected patient population with FUO.

No abstract

Context.—Adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix is a recently recognized interpretation in the Bethesda 2001 system. Although specific morphologic criteria have been published, recognizing this entity is still difficult. Objective.—To compare pathologists' ability to correctly identify and categorize adenocarcinoma in situ with their ability to identify and categorize adenocarcinoma, high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion, and squamous cell carcinoma. Design.—Pathologists' reviews in the 2001 and 2002 College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Cervicovaginal Cytology Program, an interlaboratory comparison program for gynecologic cytology, were examined. Cases were usually reviewed by multiple pathologists. False-negative rates, the percentage of reviews with exact agreement with reference interpretations, and the percentage of cases in which all reviews were in exact agreement with the reference interpretation for adenocarcinoma in situ, adenocarcinoma, high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion, and squamous cell carcinoma were compared. Results.—A total of 213 reviews of cases categorized as adenocarcinoma in situ were compared with 2821 reviews of adenocarcinoma, 7535 reviews of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion, and 1886 reviews of squamous cell carcinoma. The false-negative rate for adenocarcinoma in situ (11.7%) was significantly higher than that for high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (4.6%, P < .001) and squamous cell carcinoma (3.3%, P < .001) but not for adenocarcinoma (8.9%, P = .16). Of all the reviews of adenocarcinoma in situ cases, 46.5% were interpreted specifically as adenocarcinoma in situ, compared to 72.2% of reviews of adenocarcinoma, 73.2% of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion, and 75.1% of squamous cell carcinoma. No individual case of adenocarcinoma in situ was always specifically recognized as adenocarcinoma in situ; 26.5% of cases of adenocarcinoma were specifically recognized as such in all reviews. Findings were similar with and without the inclusion of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion/carcinoma, not otherwise specified, as an acceptable review interpretation for cases of adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, and high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion. Conclusion.—These data from expert-referenced and biopsy-proven cases suggest that adenocarcinoma in situ is not as easily recognized or categorized as other serious diagnoses.

Fine-needle aspiration (FNA) cytology is a reliable technique for rapid diagnosis in virtually every organ of the body, including bone lesions. We report on the FNA findings in a 61-yr-old male of an osteolytic sacral lesion, which determined the diagnosis of an unsuspected metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma. In this case, the diagnosis was confirmed by FNA biopsy without resorting to surgical biopsy.