Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Review Article
  • Published:

Primer: cytopathology for the clinician—how to interpret the results of aspiration cytology

Nature Clinical Practice Gastroenterology & Hepatology volume 2, pages 484–491 (2005)Cite this article

Abstract

The practice of clinical cytopathology is characterized by the daily challenges of trying to establish pathological diagnoses on the basis of microscopic evaluation of small cellular samples, from both deep-seated and superficial anatomic sites. The diagnostic work-up of mass lesions involves a collaborative effort between clinicians and pathologists, and relies on the pathologist's ability to establish a reliable diagnosis; that is, one that convincingly explains the mass and its underlying neoplastic or non-neoplastic nature. Arriving at a conclusive pathological diagnosis is not always easy and additional ancillary tests, such as special stains, microbiologic cultures and flow cytometry, are often required. To ensure that clinicians can make appropriate management decisions, it is essential that pathologists use conventionally accepted diagnostic nomenclature and communicate effectively with their clinical colleagues. Clinicians should also ensure that the pathologist is provided with all relevant clinical information, preferably at the time of submission of the specimen. Clinicians should consult with the pathologist before the biopsy procedure, and inform them of the clinical differential diagnoses, to ensure that the proper ancillary tests are obtained for definite diagnosis.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Mobile cart with microscope, staining rack, and all necessary materials for performing FNA and on-site assessment of aspirates.
Figure 2: Model of a cytopathology report.
Figure 3: Suggested management algorithm for non-gynecologic cytologic diagnoses.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kaminsky DB (1984) Aspiration biopsy in the context of the new Medicare fiscal policy. Acta Cytol 28: 333–337

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Logroño R et al. (1998) Multidisciplinary approach to deep-seated lesions requiring radiologically-guided fine-needle aspiration. Diagn Cytopathol 18: 338–342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Rimm DL et al. (1997) Comparison of the costs of fine-needle aspiration and open surgical biopsy as methods for obtaining a pathological diagnosis. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol) 81: 51–56

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Suen KC et al. (1997) Guidelines of the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology for fine-needle aspiration procedure and reporting. The Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology Task Force on Standards of Practice. Mod Pathol 10: 739–747

    Google Scholar 

  5. Oertel YC (1987) Fine Needle Aspiration of the Breast, 15–29 Boston: Butterworths

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bottles K et al. (1986) Fine needle aspiration biopsy: has its time come? Am J Med 81: 525–531

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Franzen S and Zajicek J (1968) Aspiration biopsy in diagnosis of palpable lesions of the breast. Acta Radiol 7: 241–262

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Lee KR (1987) Fine-needle aspiration biopsy of breast: importance of aspirator. Acta Cytol 31: 281–284

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Stanley MW (1990) Who should perform fine-needle aspiration biopsy? Diagn Cytopathol 6: 215–217

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Coghill SB and Brown LA (1995) Why pathologists should take needle aspiration specimens [editorial]. Cytopathology 6: 1–4

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Oertel YC (2004) Emerging role of the interventional pathologist [editorial]. Diagn Cytopathol 30: 295–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Grohs HK (1988) The interventional cytopathologist: a new clinician/pathologist hybrid. Am J Clin Pathol 90: 351–354

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Logroño R and Waxman I (2001) Interactive role of the cytopathologist in EUS-guided fine needle aspiration: an efficient approach. Gastrointest Endosc 54: 485–490

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Liu K et al. (1998) Fine-needle aspiration: comparison of smear, Cytospin, and cell block preparations in diagnostic and cost effectiveness. Diagn Cytopathol 19: 70–74

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Nadji M et al. (1994) Immunocytochemistry in contemporary cytology: the technique and its application. Lab Med 25: 502–508

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Bigner SH and Cohen CG (1991) Cytopathology during the 1980s. Am J Clin Pathol 96 (Suppl 1): S15–S19

    Google Scholar 

  17. Cortese C et al. (2004) Nongynecologic cytology practice guideline. Cytopathology Practice Committee, American Society of Cytopathology. Acta Cytol 48: 521–546

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Yang GCH and Alvarez II (1995) Ultrafast Papanicolaou stain: an alternative preparation for fine needle aspiration cytology. Acta Cytol 39: 55–60

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Layfield LJ et al. (2001) Immediate on-site interpretation of fine-needle aspiration smears: a cost and compensation analysis. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol) 93: 319–322

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Nasuti JF et al. (2002) Diagnostic value and cost-effectiveness of on-site evaluation of fine needle aspiration specimens: review of 5,688 cases. Diagn Cytopathol 27: 1–4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Eloubeidi MA et al. (2003) Yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy in patients with suspected pancreatic carcinoma: emphasis on atypical, suspicious, and false-negative aspirates. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol) 99: 285–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Afify AM et al. (2003) Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of the pancreas. Diagnostic utility and accuracy. Acta Cytol 47: 341–348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Klapman JB et al. (2003) Clinical impact of on-site cytopathology interpretation on endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration. Am J Gastroenterol 98: 1289–1294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Gu M et al. (2001) Cytologic diagnosis of gastrointestinal stromal tumors of the stomach by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration biopsy: cytomorphologic and immunohistochemical study of 12 cases. Diagn Cytopathol 25: 343–350

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Ando N et al. (2002) The diagnosis of GI stromal tumors with EUS-guided fine needle aspiration with immunohistochemical analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 55: 37–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Lozano MD et al. (2003) Fine needle aspiration cytology and immunocytochemistry in the diagnosis of 24 gastrointestinal stromal tumors: a quick, reliable diagnostic method. Diagn Cytopathol 28: 131–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. De May RM (1996) The Art and Science of Cytopathology, vol 2. Chicago: ASCP Press

    Google Scholar 

  28. Mody DR (online August 2003) College of American Pathologists August 2003 Special Section: PAP/NGC Program Review. Defining adequacy in nongynecologic cytology. [http://www.cap.org/apps/docs/cap_today/pap_ngc/NGC0803_adequacy.html] (accessed 30 August 2005)

  29. Solomon D and Nayar R (Eds; 2004). The Bethesda System for Reporting Cervical Cytology. Definitions, Criteria, and Explanatory Notes, edn 2. New York: Springer

    Book  Google Scholar 

  30. Carson HJ et al. (1995) Unsatisfactory aspirates from fine-needle aspiration biopsies: a review. Diagn Cytopathol 12: 280–284

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Schmidt WA et al. (1994) The triple test. A cost-effective diagnostic tool. Lab Med 25: 715–719

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Ohori NP et al. (2003) Cytologic–histologic correlation of nongynecologic cytopathologic cases: Separation of determinate from indeterminate cytologic diagnoses for analysis and monitoring of laboratory performance. Diagn Cytopathol 28: 28–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Kline TS and Bedrossian CWM (1996) Communication and cytopathology, Part IV: The term “suspicious” [editorial]. Diagn Cytopathol 14: viii–ix

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Care Financing Administration (2003) Clinical laboratory improvement amendments of 1988: Final rule. Federal Register 68: 493.1291(g)

  35. College of American Pathologists (2002) Commission on Laboratory Accreditation Inspection Checklist. Northfield, Illinois: CAP

  36. Kocjan G and Nisbet-Smith A (1997) Bile duct brushings cytology: potential pitfalls in diagnosis. Diagn Cytopathol 16: 358–363

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Stanley MW (1995) False-positive diagnoses in exfoliative cytology [editorial]. Am J Clin Pathol 104: 117–119

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Logroño R et al. (2000) Analysis of false-negative diagnoses on endoscopic brush cytology of biliary and pancreatic duct strictures: the experience at 2 university hospitals. Arch Pathol Lab Med 124: 387–392

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Logroño R and Wong JY (2004) Reporting the presence of significant epithelial atypia in pancreaticobiliary brush cytology specimens lacking evidence of obvious carcinoma: impact on performance measures. Acta Cytol 48: 613–621

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author thanks JY Wong for his assistance with Figure 3.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Associate Professor of Pathology and the Director of Cytopathology in the Department of Pathology, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX, USA

    Roberto Logroño

Authors
  1. Roberto Logroño
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The author declares no competing financial interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Logroño, R. Primer: cytopathology for the clinician—how to interpret the results of aspiration cytology. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2, 484–491 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1038/ncpgasthep0290

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ncpgasthep0290

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing