Second opinion for pulmonary and pleural cytology is valuable for patient care

Abstract

IntroductionThoracic cytology can be challenging due to limited procured material or overlapping morphology between benign and malignant entities. In such cases, expert consultation might be sought. This study aimed to characterize all pulmonary and pleural cytology consult cases submitted to our practice and provide recommendations on approaching difficult cases. Materials and MethodsAll thoracic (pulmonary and pleural) cytology cases submitted for expert consultation to the University of Michigan (MLabs) from 2013 to mid-2022 were reviewed. Cases where cytology was only part of a hematopathology or surgical pathology consult were excluded. Patient demographics, specimen location, procedure performed, referring diagnosis, and our diagnoses were recorded for each case. Diagnoses were categorized according to the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology recommendations for pulmonary and effusion cytology. Discordant diagnoses were stratified as major or minor. Data was analyzed using Chi-Square analysis and logistic models. ResultsWe received 784 thoracic cytology consult cases, including 530 exfoliative samples and 307 fine needle aspirations (FNAs). The most common anatomic locations sampled were the bronchial wall (n=194, 23%), lung nodule (n=322, 38%), and pleura (n=296, 35%). 413 cases had a diagnostic discrepancy (48.3%), with 274 (66%) minor and 139 (34%) major discrepancies. By location, pleural effusion specimens had the highest probability of a discrepant diagnosis (p=0.003). By specimen type, FNA samples were significantly more likely to have a discrepant diagnosis (p=0.06). ConclusionNearly half of the thoracic cytology cases submitted for expert second opinion had diagnostic discrepancies. Consequently, consulting a tertiary medical care center with cytopathology expertise for challenging thoracic cytology diagnoses is beneficial.