The Milan system for reporting salivary gland cytopathology: Single center experience with cell blocks. Issue 11 (7th June 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Behaeghe, Marie; Vander Poorten, Vincent; Hermans, Robert; Politis, Constantinus; Weynand, Birgit; Hauben, Esther
• Is Part Of: Diagnostic cytopathology. Volume 48:Issue 11(2020)
• Page Start: 972
• Page End: 978
• Publication Date: 2020-06-07
• Subjects: cell blocks -- cytopathology -- Milan system -- MSRSGC -- salivary gland; Cytodiagnosis -- Periodicals; Pathology, Cellular -- Periodicals; Cytology -- Periodicals; 616.07582
• DOI: 10.1002/dc.24515
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 8755-1039

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Salivary gland fine needle aspiration (FNA) has a well‐established role in the evaluation of salivary gland lesions. The Milan system for reporting salivary gland cytopathology (MSRSGC) was developed in 2018 to accomplish a standardized reporting across institutions. This classification is predominantly based on the use of direct smears. This single center study aims to evaluate and further validate the MSRSGC based on the sole use of cell blocks and carry out a risk assessment based on follow up histopathology. Methods: A total of 359 FNA specimens from 343 patients processed as cell blocks between 2012 and 2018 were retrieved, with histologic follow‐up available in 235 cases. The cytological diagnosis were reclassified according to the MSRSGC categories: non‐diagnostic, non‐neoplastic, atypia of undetermined significance (AUS), benign neoplasm, salivary gland neoplasm of uncertain malignant potential (SUMP), suspicious for malignancy (SFM), and malignant. The use of ancillary immunohistochemistry or molecular testing was recorded. The risk of malignancy (ROM) was calculated for each diagnostic category. Results: Overall accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 92.9%, 75.9%, 97.9%, 91.7%, and 95%, respectively. The ROM for the non‐diagnostic, non‐neoplastic, AUS benign neoplasms, SUMP, SFM and malignant categories were 13.8%, 14.2%, 30%, 6.3%, 20.8%, 60%, and 100%, respectively. Conclusion: This large single center retrospective series further validates the MSRSGC. The proposed diagnostic classification is reproducible with use of cell blocks. Discrepancies in number of cases per category and ROM are based on cross‐institution variabilities, pre‐FNA diagnostics (imaging) and ancillary tests.