Peniche-Alvarado C, Ramos-Peñafiel CO, Martínez-Murillo C, Romero-Guadarrama M, Olarte-Carrillo I, Rozen-Fuller E, Martínez-Tovar A, Collazo-Jaloma J, Mendoza-García CA

Language: Spanish
References: 10
Page: 502-505
PDF size: 237.35 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Background: lymphoma is the most frequent lymphoid neoplasm in our country. Its diagnosis is based on histopathological fi ndings. The lymph node imprint has been used for more than 40 years. The aim was to establish the sensitivity, specifi city, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of lymph node imprint and estimate the interobserver rate.
Methods: it was done an observational, retrospective, prolective study, based on the lymph node imprint obtained by excisional biopsy in a period of 6 years.
Results: the inclusion criteria was met on 199 samples, 27.1 % were considered as reactive (n = 54), 16.1 % Hodgkin lymphoma (n = 32), 40.2 % (n = 80) non Hodgkin lymphoma and 16.6 % (n = 33) as metastatic carcinoma. Comparing with the final histopathology report, the sensitivity and specifi city of lymph node imprint were 88 % (0.81-0.95) and 64 % (0.55-0.73) respectively, the positive predictive value was 67 % (0.59-0.76) and the negative predictive value was 86 % (0.79-0.94). The interobserver kappa index was 0.467.
Conclusions: the lymph node imprint remains as a useful tool for the diagnosis of lymphoid neoplasm. The agreement between observers was acceptable.

REFERENCES

1. Jaffe ES, Harris NL, Stein H, Isaacson PG. Classifi - cation of lymphoid neoplasms: the microscope as a tool for disease discovery. Blood. 2008;112(12):4384- 99. Texto libre en http://bloodjournal.hematologylibrary. org/content/112/12/4384.full.pdf+html

2. Molyneaux AJ, Attanoos RL, Coghill SB. The value of lymph node imprint cytodiagnosis: an assessment of interobserver agreement and diagnostic accuracy. Cytopathology. 1997;8(4):256-64.

3. Das DK. Value and limitations of fi ne-needle aspiration citology in diagnosis and classifi cation of lymphomas: a review. Diagn Cytopthol. 1999;21(4):240-9.

4. Ademiluyi SA, Akinyanju OO, Mordi VP. Evaluation of lymph node imprint in rapid diagnosis of lymph node biopsy specimens. J Clin Pathol. 1986;39(6):688-9. Texto libre en http://jcp.bmj.com/content/39/6/688. long

5. Funamoto Y, Nagai M, Haba R, Ishikawa M, Kishida F, Kohno K, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of imprint cytology in the assessment of Hodgkin’s disease in Japan. Diagn Cytopathol. 2005;33(1):20-5.

6. Arif SH, Hassan MJ, Jain M, Verma AK, Naim M. Role of imprint cytology in diagnosis of lymph node lesions. Ind Med Gaz. 2011;145(10):385-90. Texto libre en http://medind.nic.in/ice/t11/i10/icet11i10p385. pdf

7. Gupta RK, Naran S, Lallu S, Fauck R. The diagnostic value of fi ne needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) in the assessment of palpable supraclavicular lymph nodes: a study of 218 cases. Cytopathology. 2003;14(4):201-7.

8. Koo CH, Rappaport H, Sheibani K, Pangalis GA, Nathwani BN, Winberg CD. Imprint cytology of non- Hodgkin’s lymphomas based on a study of 212 immunologically characterized cases: correlation of touch imprints with tissue sections. Hum Pathol. 1989;20(12 Suppl 1):1-137.

9. Lumachi F, Marino F, Zanella S, Chiara GB, Basso SM. Touch imprint cytology and frozen-section analysis for intraoperative evaluation of sentinel nodes in early breast cancer. Anticancer Res. 2012;32(8):3523-6.

10. Safai A, Razeghi A, Monabati A, Azarpira N, Talei A. Comparing touch imprint cytology, frozen section analysis, and cytokeratin immunostaining for intraoperative valuation of axillary sentinel lymph nodes in breast cancer. Indian J Pathol Microbiol. 2012;55(2):183-6. Texto libre en http://www.ijpmonline. org/article.asp?issn=0377- 929;year=2012;volu me=55;issue=2;spage=183;epage=186;aulast=Safai