How the Milan System for Reporting Salivary Gland Cytopathology works in cytopathology practice: Meta-analysis of prospective studies and comparison with retrospective studies
Jazyk angličtina Země Spojené státy americké Médium print-electronic
Typ dokumentu časopisecké články, metaanalýza, srovnávací studie
Grantová podpora
Charles University Cooperatio Program
Pirkanmaa Hospital District
PubMed
38594082
DOI
10.1002/cncy.22815
Knihovny.cz E-zdroje
- Klíčová slova
- Milan System for Reporting Salivary Gland Cytopathology, fine‐needle aspiration, meta‐analysis, salivary gland,
- MeSH
- cytodiagnostika metody MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- nádory slinných žláz * patologie diagnóza MeSH
- prospektivní studie MeSH
- retrospektivní studie MeSH
- slinné žlázy * patologie MeSH
- tenkojehlová biopsie MeSH
- Check Tag
- lidé MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- metaanalýza MeSH
- srovnávací studie MeSH
BACKGROUND: The Milan System for Reporting Salivary Gland Cytopathology (MSRSGC) is widely accepted and endorsed by professional societies. Although several studies focusing on the MSRSGC have been published, few have been prospective studies. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the MSRSGC in cytopathology practice. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted to identify all prospective studies on the MSRSGC. The risk of malignancy (ROM), risk of neoplasm, and diagnostic accuracy for each diagnostic category were calculated. Data were tabulated in Microsoft Excel, and analyses were performed with the Open Meta-Analyst program. RESULTS: Seven prospective and seven retrospective studies were identified. The total number of fine-needle aspirations (FNAs) was 1587 in the prospective studies and 1764 in the retrospective studies. The ROM values for the nondiagnostic, nonneoplastic, atypia of undetermined significance, benign neoplasm, salivary gland neoplasm of uncertain malignant potential, suspicious for malignancy, and malignant categories in prospective versus retrospective studies were 21.0% versus 26.6%, 9.4% versus 8.1%, 34.9% versus 39.6%, 2.4% versus 2.1%, 36.6% versus 31.2%, 86.0% versus 66.0%, and 97.0% versus 96.7%, respectively. Sensitivities, specificities, and diagnostic odds ratios were 83.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 71.1%-90.8%) versus 89.1% (95% CI, 83.6%-92.9%), 98.4% (95% CI, 96.6%-99.3%) versus 94.9% (95% CI, 91.9%-96.9%), and 310.7 (95% CI, 121.2-796.6) versus 218.8 (95% CI, 107.3-438.1). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis indicated that the MSRSGC works well in FNA cytopathology practice and improves diagnostic accuracy in all diagnostic categories. The ROMs of prospective studies were in concordance with the MSRSGC reference values.
Department of Pathology Johns Hopkins Hospital Baltimore Maryland USA
Faculty of Medicine and Health Technology Tampere University Tampere Finland
Zobrazit více v PubMed
Faquin WC, Rossi ED, eds. The Milan System for Reporting Salivary Gland Cytopathology. Springer; 2018.
Rossi ED, Faquin WC. The Milan System for Reporting Salivary Gland Cytopathology (MSRSGC): an international effort toward improved patient care—when the roots might be inspired by Leonardo da Vinci. Cancer Cytopathol. 2018;126(9):756‐766. doi:10.1002/cncy.22040
Rossi ED, Baloch Z, Pusztaszeri M, Faquin WC. The Milan System for Reporting Salivary Gland Cytopathology (MSRSGC): an ASC‐IAC–sponsored system for reporting salivary gland fine‐needle aspiration. J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2018;7(3):111‐118. doi:10.1016/j.jasc.2018.02.002
Barbarite E, Puram SV, Derakhshan A, Rossi ED, Faquin WC, Varvares MA. A call for universal acceptance of the Milan System for Reporting Salivary Gland Cytopathology. Laryngoscope. 2020;130(1):80‐85. doi:10.1002/lary.27905
Jalaly JB, Farahani SJ, Baloch ZW. The Milan System for Reporting Salivary Gland Cytopathology: a comprehensive review of the literature. Diagn Cytopathol. 2020;48(10):880‐889. doi:10.1002/dc.24536
Wang Z, Zhao H, Guo H, An C. Application of the Milan System for Reporting Salivary Gland Cytopathology: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Cancer Cytopathol. 2022;130(11):849‐859. doi:10.1002/cncy.22604
Gubbiotti MA, Jalaly J, Baloch Z. Making a case for the success of Milan System for Reporting Salivary Gland Cytopathology. Diagn Cytopathol. 2022;50(9):451‐455. doi:10.1002/dc.25010
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. PLoS Med. 2021;18(3):e1003583. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1003583
Tommola E, Tommola S, Porre S, Kholová I. Salivary gland FNA diagnostics in a real‐life setting: one‐year experiences of the implementation of the Milan System in a tertiary care center. Cancers. 2019;11(10):1589. doi:10.3390/cancers11101589
Tommola E, Kalfert D, Hakso‐Mäkinen H, Kholová I. The contributory role of cell blocks in salivary gland neoplasms fine needle aspirations classified by the Milan System for Reporting Salivary Gland Cytology. Diagnostics. 2021;11(10):1778. doi:10.3390/diagnostics11101778
Archondakis S, Roma M, Kaladelfou E. Two‐year experience of the implementation of the Milan for Reporting Salivary Gland Cytopathology at a private medical laboratory. Head Neck Pathol. 2021;15(3):780‐786. doi:10.1007/s12105‐020‐01278‐1
Mishra S, Ray S, Sengupta M, Sengupta A. A cytohistological correlation in salivary gland swelling with special reference to the proposed Milan System. Indian J Pathol Microbiol. 2019;62(3):379‐383. doi:10.4103/ijpm.ijpm_662_17
Karuna V, Vivek V, Singh R, Gupta P, Verma N. MSRSGC: a prospective study of heterogenous group atypia of undetermined significance. Indian J Pathol Microbiol. 2022;65(3):630‐636.
Hosseini SM, Resta IT, Baloch ZW. Diagnostic performance of Milan System for Reporting Salivary Gland Cytopathology: a prospective study. Diagn Cytopathol. 2021;49(7):822‐831. doi:10.1002/dc.24748
Manucha V, Gonzalez MF, Akhtar I. Impact of the Milan System for Reporting Salivary Gland Cytology on risk assessment when used in routine practice in a real‐time setting. J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2021;10(2):208‐215. doi:10.1016/j.jasc.2020.08.005
Sadullahoğlu C, Yıldırım HT, Nergiz D, et al. The risk of malignancy according to Milan reporting system of salivary gland fine‐needle aspiration with Becton Dickinson SurePath liquid‐based processing. Diagn Cytopathol. 2019;47(9):863‐868. doi:10.1002/dc.24214
Dubucs C, Basset C, D’Aure D, Courtade‐Saïdi M, Evrard SM. A 4‐year retrospective analysis of salivary gland cytopathology using the Milan System for Reporting Salivary Gland Cytology and ancillary studies. Cancers. 2019;11(12):1912. doi:10.3390/cancers11121912
Mullen D, Gibbons D. A retrospective comparison of salivary gland fine needle aspiration reporting with the Milan System for Reporting Salivary Gland Cytology. Cytopathology. 2020;31(3):208‐214. doi:10.1111/cyt.12811
Kala C, Kala S, Khan L. Milan System for Reporting Salivary Gland Cytopathology: an experience with the implication for risk of malignancy. J Cytol. 2019;36(3):160‐164. doi:10.4103/joc.joc_165_18
Pujani M, Chauhan V, Agarwal C, Raychaudhuri S, Singh K. A critical appraisal of the Milan System for Reporting Salivary Gland Cytology (MSRSGC) with histological correlation over a 3‐year period: Indian scenario. Diagn Cytopathol. 2019;47(5):382‐388. doi:10.1002/dc.24109
Rivera Rolon M, Schnadig VJ, Faiz S, Nawgiri R, Clement CG. Salivary gland fine‐needle aspiration cytology with the application of the Milan System for risk stratification and histological correlation: a retrospective 6‐year study. Diagn Cytopathol. 2020;48(11):1067‐1074. doi:10.1002/dc.24478
Hollyfield JM, O’Connor SM, Maygarden SJ, et al. Northern Italy in the American South: assessing interobserver reliability within the Milan System for Reporting Salivary Gland Cytopathology. Cancer Cytopathol. 2018;126(6):390‐396. doi:10.1002/cncy.21989
Faquin WC, Rossi ED, eds. The Milan System for Reporting Salivary Gland Cytopathology. 2nd ed. Springer; 2023.
The Milan System SUMP Category: 5-Year Diagnostic Performance
Warthin's Tumour Diagnostic Outcome in the Milan System Era and Cytomorphological Pitfalls