Aetiology of non‐diagnostic renal fine‐needle aspiration cytologies in a contemporary series

OBJECTIVES To determine the aetiology of non‐diagnostic renal fine‐needle aspiration cytologies (FNACs) in a contemporary series. PATIENTS AND METHODS We retrospectively reviewed our institutional database of renal FNACs performed between 1995 and 2005. There were 118 patients with renal lesions tha...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:BJU international 2009-01, Vol.103 (1), p.28-32
Hauptverfasser: Andonian, Sero, Okeke, Zeph, VanderBrink, Brian A., Okeke, Deidre A., Sugrue, Chiara, Wasserman, Patricia G., Richstone, Lee, Lee, Benjamin R.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 32
container_issue 1
container_start_page 28
container_title BJU international
container_volume 103
creator Andonian, Sero
Okeke, Zeph
VanderBrink, Brian A.
Okeke, Deidre A.
Sugrue, Chiara
Wasserman, Patricia G.
Richstone, Lee
Lee, Benjamin R.
description OBJECTIVES To determine the aetiology of non‐diagnostic renal fine‐needle aspiration cytologies (FNACs) in a contemporary series. PATIENTS AND METHODS We retrospectively reviewed our institutional database of renal FNACs performed between 1995 and 2005. There were 118 patients with renal lesions that underwent FNAC. Indications for FNAC were indeterminate complex renal cysts, significant medical comorbidities, previous history of malignancy, multiple bilateral renal lesions, and suspected metastatic disease. A cytotechnologist was present during the FNA procedure to perform Diff‐Quik staining and ensure an adequate sample of cells were obtained. Except for seven (six open, one ultrasound‐guided), all of the FNACs were performed with CT guidance. RESULTS The median (range) number of passes for each FNAC session was 2.7 (1–6). Of the 16 FNACs performed for indeterminate complex renal cysts, nine (56%) were adequate with the cytodiagnosis of benign cysts. Of the seven inadequate specimens, three had benign cysts and another three were non‐diagnostic due to acellularity. Therefore, the technical failure rate was 19% (3/16) for indeterminate complex renal cysts. The last patient had a cytodiagnosis of benign cyst and the final histological diagnosis of renal cell carcinoma (RCC; papilllary, grade III). Therefore, this represents a sampling error (false negative rate) of 0.8% (1/118). For the 102 solid renal masses, 22 (22%) had inadequate specimen by Diff‐Quik staining. The technical failure rate (inability to obtain sufficient epithelial cells) was 16% (16). In 18 patients, immunocytochemistry (ICC) was used to differentiate primary renal parenchymal tumours from others such as transitional cell carcinoma (TCC), lymphoproliferative, colon, and lung. There were two FNACs with misdiagnosis (2%), where ICC was not used. In both, the cytodiagnosis was TCC and the final histological diagnosis was RCC in one and atypical urothelium in another. CONCLUSIONS Non‐diagnostic renal FNACs can be attributed to misdiagnosis (2%), sampling error (0.8%) and technical failure (16%).
doi_str_mv 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.07942.x
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_66737231</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>66737231</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4472-33b2499b067a4dcffbcc0ec2ef751caca14f76e056064f4e61ed262137cab4093</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkM1OAyEUhYnRaP15BcNGdx2BoUxn4aI2_sbEjSbukGEuDc0UKkyj3fkIPqNPImNr3cqGm3vPuRw-hDAlGU3nbJpRLnifU_KcMUKGGSlKzrL3LdTbDLZ_a1KKPbQf45SQ1BCDXbRHS8KoYMMeehlBa33jJ0vsDXbefX181lZNnI-t1TiAUw021kHqO4C6Aazi3AaVXA7rZdt5LURsHVZYe9fCbO6DCkscIaTBIdoxqolwtL4P0NPV5eP4pn__cH07Ht33NecF6-d5xXhZVkQUitfamEprApqBKQZUK60oN4UAMhBEcMNBUKiZYDQvtKrSF_MDdLraOw_-dQGxlTMbNTSNcuAXUQpR5AXLaRIOV0IdfIwBjJwHO0uBJSWyoyunsgMnO4iyoyt_6Mr3ZD1ev7GoZlD_Gdc4k-BkLVBRq8YE5bSNGx2jhDAx7DKcr3RvtoHlvwPIi7unrsq_AZm3mZg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>66737231</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Aetiology of non‐diagnostic renal fine‐needle aspiration cytologies in a contemporary series</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Andonian, Sero ; Okeke, Zeph ; VanderBrink, Brian A. ; Okeke, Deidre A. ; Sugrue, Chiara ; Wasserman, Patricia G. ; Richstone, Lee ; Lee, Benjamin R.</creator><creatorcontrib>Andonian, Sero ; Okeke, Zeph ; VanderBrink, Brian A. ; Okeke, Deidre A. ; Sugrue, Chiara ; Wasserman, Patricia G. ; Richstone, Lee ; Lee, Benjamin R.</creatorcontrib><description>OBJECTIVES To determine the aetiology of non‐diagnostic renal fine‐needle aspiration cytologies (FNACs) in a contemporary series. PATIENTS AND METHODS We retrospectively reviewed our institutional database of renal FNACs performed between 1995 and 2005. There were 118 patients with renal lesions that underwent FNAC. Indications for FNAC were indeterminate complex renal cysts, significant medical comorbidities, previous history of malignancy, multiple bilateral renal lesions, and suspected metastatic disease. A cytotechnologist was present during the FNA procedure to perform Diff‐Quik staining and ensure an adequate sample of cells were obtained. Except for seven (six open, one ultrasound‐guided), all of the FNACs were performed with CT guidance. RESULTS The median (range) number of passes for each FNAC session was 2.7 (1–6). Of the 16 FNACs performed for indeterminate complex renal cysts, nine (56%) were adequate with the cytodiagnosis of benign cysts. Of the seven inadequate specimens, three had benign cysts and another three were non‐diagnostic due to acellularity. Therefore, the technical failure rate was 19% (3/16) for indeterminate complex renal cysts. The last patient had a cytodiagnosis of benign cyst and the final histological diagnosis of renal cell carcinoma (RCC; papilllary, grade III). Therefore, this represents a sampling error (false negative rate) of 0.8% (1/118). For the 102 solid renal masses, 22 (22%) had inadequate specimen by Diff‐Quik staining. The technical failure rate (inability to obtain sufficient epithelial cells) was 16% (16). In 18 patients, immunocytochemistry (ICC) was used to differentiate primary renal parenchymal tumours from others such as transitional cell carcinoma (TCC), lymphoproliferative, colon, and lung. There were two FNACs with misdiagnosis (2%), where ICC was not used. In both, the cytodiagnosis was TCC and the final histological diagnosis was RCC in one and atypical urothelium in another. CONCLUSIONS Non‐diagnostic renal FNACs can be attributed to misdiagnosis (2%), sampling error (0.8%) and technical failure (16%).</description><identifier>ISSN: 1464-4096</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1464-410X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.07942.x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 19021628</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Adolescent ; Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Biological and medical sciences ; Biopsy, Fine-Needle ; Carcinoma, Renal Cell - pathology ; Child ; Child, Preschool ; Cysts - pathology ; cytodiagnosis ; Diagnostic Errors ; Female ; fine‐needle aspiration cytology ; Humans ; Infant ; Kidney - pathology ; Kidney Diseases - pathology ; Kidneys ; Male ; Medical sciences ; Middle Aged ; Nephrology. Urinary tract diseases ; renal tumours ; Retrospective Studies ; Tumors of the urinary system ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>BJU international, 2009-01, Vol.103 (1), p.28-32</ispartof><rights>2008 THE AUTHORS. JOURNAL COMPILATION © 2008 BJU INTERNATIONAL</rights><rights>2009 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4472-33b2499b067a4dcffbcc0ec2ef751caca14f76e056064f4e61ed262137cab4093</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4472-33b2499b067a4dcffbcc0ec2ef751caca14f76e056064f4e61ed262137cab4093</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fj.1464-410X.2008.07942.x$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fj.1464-410X.2008.07942.x$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,4010,27900,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=21002681$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19021628$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Andonian, Sero</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Okeke, Zeph</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>VanderBrink, Brian A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Okeke, Deidre A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sugrue, Chiara</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wasserman, Patricia G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Richstone, Lee</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, Benjamin R.</creatorcontrib><title>Aetiology of non‐diagnostic renal fine‐needle aspiration cytologies in a contemporary series</title><title>BJU international</title><addtitle>BJU Int</addtitle><description>OBJECTIVES To determine the aetiology of non‐diagnostic renal fine‐needle aspiration cytologies (FNACs) in a contemporary series. PATIENTS AND METHODS We retrospectively reviewed our institutional database of renal FNACs performed between 1995 and 2005. There were 118 patients with renal lesions that underwent FNAC. Indications for FNAC were indeterminate complex renal cysts, significant medical comorbidities, previous history of malignancy, multiple bilateral renal lesions, and suspected metastatic disease. A cytotechnologist was present during the FNA procedure to perform Diff‐Quik staining and ensure an adequate sample of cells were obtained. Except for seven (six open, one ultrasound‐guided), all of the FNACs were performed with CT guidance. RESULTS The median (range) number of passes for each FNAC session was 2.7 (1–6). Of the 16 FNACs performed for indeterminate complex renal cysts, nine (56%) were adequate with the cytodiagnosis of benign cysts. Of the seven inadequate specimens, three had benign cysts and another three were non‐diagnostic due to acellularity. Therefore, the technical failure rate was 19% (3/16) for indeterminate complex renal cysts. The last patient had a cytodiagnosis of benign cyst and the final histological diagnosis of renal cell carcinoma (RCC; papilllary, grade III). Therefore, this represents a sampling error (false negative rate) of 0.8% (1/118). For the 102 solid renal masses, 22 (22%) had inadequate specimen by Diff‐Quik staining. The technical failure rate (inability to obtain sufficient epithelial cells) was 16% (16). In 18 patients, immunocytochemistry (ICC) was used to differentiate primary renal parenchymal tumours from others such as transitional cell carcinoma (TCC), lymphoproliferative, colon, and lung. There were two FNACs with misdiagnosis (2%), where ICC was not used. In both, the cytodiagnosis was TCC and the final histological diagnosis was RCC in one and atypical urothelium in another. CONCLUSIONS Non‐diagnostic renal FNACs can be attributed to misdiagnosis (2%), sampling error (0.8%) and technical failure (16%).</description><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Biopsy, Fine-Needle</subject><subject>Carcinoma, Renal Cell - pathology</subject><subject>Child</subject><subject>Child, Preschool</subject><subject>Cysts - pathology</subject><subject>cytodiagnosis</subject><subject>Diagnostic Errors</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>fine‐needle aspiration cytology</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Infant</subject><subject>Kidney - pathology</subject><subject>Kidney Diseases - pathology</subject><subject>Kidneys</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Nephrology. Urinary tract diseases</subject><subject>renal tumours</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Tumors of the urinary system</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>1464-4096</issn><issn>1464-410X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2009</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkM1OAyEUhYnRaP15BcNGdx2BoUxn4aI2_sbEjSbukGEuDc0UKkyj3fkIPqNPImNr3cqGm3vPuRw-hDAlGU3nbJpRLnifU_KcMUKGGSlKzrL3LdTbDLZ_a1KKPbQf45SQ1BCDXbRHS8KoYMMeehlBa33jJ0vsDXbefX181lZNnI-t1TiAUw021kHqO4C6Aazi3AaVXA7rZdt5LURsHVZYe9fCbO6DCkscIaTBIdoxqolwtL4P0NPV5eP4pn__cH07Ht33NecF6-d5xXhZVkQUitfamEprApqBKQZUK60oN4UAMhBEcMNBUKiZYDQvtKrSF_MDdLraOw_-dQGxlTMbNTSNcuAXUQpR5AXLaRIOV0IdfIwBjJwHO0uBJSWyoyunsgMnO4iyoyt_6Mr3ZD1ev7GoZlD_Gdc4k-BkLVBRq8YE5bSNGx2jhDAx7DKcr3RvtoHlvwPIi7unrsq_AZm3mZg</recordid><startdate>200901</startdate><enddate>200901</enddate><creator>Andonian, Sero</creator><creator>Okeke, Zeph</creator><creator>VanderBrink, Brian A.</creator><creator>Okeke, Deidre A.</creator><creator>Sugrue, Chiara</creator><creator>Wasserman, Patricia G.</creator><creator>Richstone, Lee</creator><creator>Lee, Benjamin R.</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><general>Wiley-Blackwell</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200901</creationdate><title>Aetiology of non‐diagnostic renal fine‐needle aspiration cytologies in a contemporary series</title><author>Andonian, Sero ; Okeke, Zeph ; VanderBrink, Brian A. ; Okeke, Deidre A. ; Sugrue, Chiara ; Wasserman, Patricia G. ; Richstone, Lee ; Lee, Benjamin R.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4472-33b2499b067a4dcffbcc0ec2ef751caca14f76e056064f4e61ed262137cab4093</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2009</creationdate><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Biopsy, Fine-Needle</topic><topic>Carcinoma, Renal Cell - pathology</topic><topic>Child</topic><topic>Child, Preschool</topic><topic>Cysts - pathology</topic><topic>cytodiagnosis</topic><topic>Diagnostic Errors</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>fine‐needle aspiration cytology</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Infant</topic><topic>Kidney - pathology</topic><topic>Kidney Diseases - pathology</topic><topic>Kidneys</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Nephrology. Urinary tract diseases</topic><topic>renal tumours</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Tumors of the urinary system</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Andonian, Sero</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Okeke, Zeph</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>VanderBrink, Brian A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Okeke, Deidre A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sugrue, Chiara</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wasserman, Patricia G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Richstone, Lee</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, Benjamin R.</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>BJU international</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Andonian, Sero</au><au>Okeke, Zeph</au><au>VanderBrink, Brian A.</au><au>Okeke, Deidre A.</au><au>Sugrue, Chiara</au><au>Wasserman, Patricia G.</au><au>Richstone, Lee</au><au>Lee, Benjamin R.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Aetiology of non‐diagnostic renal fine‐needle aspiration cytologies in a contemporary series</atitle><jtitle>BJU international</jtitle><addtitle>BJU Int</addtitle><date>2009-01</date><risdate>2009</risdate><volume>103</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>28</spage><epage>32</epage><pages>28-32</pages><issn>1464-4096</issn><eissn>1464-410X</eissn><abstract>OBJECTIVES To determine the aetiology of non‐diagnostic renal fine‐needle aspiration cytologies (FNACs) in a contemporary series. PATIENTS AND METHODS We retrospectively reviewed our institutional database of renal FNACs performed between 1995 and 2005. There were 118 patients with renal lesions that underwent FNAC. Indications for FNAC were indeterminate complex renal cysts, significant medical comorbidities, previous history of malignancy, multiple bilateral renal lesions, and suspected metastatic disease. A cytotechnologist was present during the FNA procedure to perform Diff‐Quik staining and ensure an adequate sample of cells were obtained. Except for seven (six open, one ultrasound‐guided), all of the FNACs were performed with CT guidance. RESULTS The median (range) number of passes for each FNAC session was 2.7 (1–6). Of the 16 FNACs performed for indeterminate complex renal cysts, nine (56%) were adequate with the cytodiagnosis of benign cysts. Of the seven inadequate specimens, three had benign cysts and another three were non‐diagnostic due to acellularity. Therefore, the technical failure rate was 19% (3/16) for indeterminate complex renal cysts. The last patient had a cytodiagnosis of benign cyst and the final histological diagnosis of renal cell carcinoma (RCC; papilllary, grade III). Therefore, this represents a sampling error (false negative rate) of 0.8% (1/118). For the 102 solid renal masses, 22 (22%) had inadequate specimen by Diff‐Quik staining. The technical failure rate (inability to obtain sufficient epithelial cells) was 16% (16). In 18 patients, immunocytochemistry (ICC) was used to differentiate primary renal parenchymal tumours from others such as transitional cell carcinoma (TCC), lymphoproliferative, colon, and lung. There were two FNACs with misdiagnosis (2%), where ICC was not used. In both, the cytodiagnosis was TCC and the final histological diagnosis was RCC in one and atypical urothelium in another. CONCLUSIONS Non‐diagnostic renal FNACs can be attributed to misdiagnosis (2%), sampling error (0.8%) and technical failure (16%).</abstract><cop>Oxford, UK</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><pmid>19021628</pmid><doi>10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.07942.x</doi><tpages>5</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1464-4096
ispartof BJU international, 2009-01, Vol.103 (1), p.28-32
issn 1464-4096
1464-410X
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_66737231
source MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete
subjects Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Biological and medical sciences
Biopsy, Fine-Needle
Carcinoma, Renal Cell - pathology
Child
Child, Preschool
Cysts - pathology
cytodiagnosis
Diagnostic Errors
Female
fine‐needle aspiration cytology
Humans
Infant
Kidney - pathology
Kidney Diseases - pathology
Kidneys
Male
Medical sciences
Middle Aged
Nephrology. Urinary tract diseases
renal tumours
Retrospective Studies
Tumors of the urinary system
Young Adult
title Aetiology of non‐diagnostic renal fine‐needle aspiration cytologies in a contemporary series
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-05T10%3A28%3A34IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Aetiology%20of%20non%E2%80%90diagnostic%20renal%20fine%E2%80%90needle%20aspiration%20cytologies%20in%20a%20contemporary%20series&rft.jtitle=BJU%20international&rft.au=Andonian,%20Sero&rft.date=2009-01&rft.volume=103&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=28&rft.epage=32&rft.pages=28-32&rft.issn=1464-4096&rft.eissn=1464-410X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.07942.x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E66737231%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=66737231&rft_id=info:pmid/19021628&rfr_iscdi=true