Comparison of Cytopathologist-Performed Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration With Cytopathologist-Performed Palpation-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration: A Single Institutional Experience

Abstract

Context.— Although fine-needle aspiration (FNA) practice by pathologists is now well established, it has been primarily performed by manual palpation. In recent years, pathologists have begun to venture into ultrasound-guided FNAs (UGFNAs). Reports on experiences with this relatively new technique for pathologists have shown promising results. However to date, there have been few studies in the literature comparing pathologist-performed UGFNA with the more traditional pathologist-performed palpation-guided FNA (PGFNA). Objective.— To compare UGFNA to PGFNA by cytopathologists at an academic medical center. Design.— A retrospective study of FNAs performed by cytopathologists within the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) pathology departmental FNA clinic was performed. Data collected included performance technique (UGFNA versus PGFNA), lesion site and size, adequacy status (nondiagnostic rate), and number of passes per procedure. Corresponding surgical pathology/flow cytometric/cytogenetic result follow-up was compared to FNA results. Findings between UGFNA and PGFNA cases were compared. Results.— Of 1029 FNA cases during the study period, there were 449 UGFNA cases (43.6%) and 580 PGFNA cases (56.4%). Nondiagnostic rates with UGFNA and PGFNA were 6.7% (30 of 449 cases) and 20.7% (120 of 580 cases), respectively. Nondiagnostic rate was also significantly lower with UGFNA than with PGFNA for lesions within the thyroid (6.0% versus 33.3%), head and neck (6.6% versus 21.2%), and salivary gland (6.2% versus 17.1%), and across all nodule sizes. A total of 495 of 1029 FNA cases (48.1%) had follow-up. Discordance rate was significantly lower with UGFNA than with PGFNA (5.4% versus 12.8%). Conclusions.— This study shows improved performance characteristics of cytopathologist-performed UGFNA versus PGFNA.