Ovarian mass lesions:
evaluation of ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration cytology with
histopathological correlation
Shah
M.1, Khanna N.2, Patel T.3, Jetly D.4,
Parikh B.5, Chandibhamar B.6
1Dr. Majal Shah, Assistant Professor, 2Dr. Nisha Khanna, Resident,
3Dr. Trupti Patel, Associate
Professor, 4Dr. Dhaval
Jetly, Associate Professor, 5Dr. Biren Parikh, Assistant Professor, 6Dr. Brinda Chandibhamar, fellow, all
authors are affiliated with Department of Pathology, Gujarat Cancer Research
Institute, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India.
Corresponding Author:
Dr. Nisha Khanna, Resident, Department of Pathology, Gujarat Cancer
Research Institute, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India. Email:
nishakhanna99@yahoo.com
Abstract
Background: Ovarian masses are frequent finding in females of
reproductive age group. Image-guided fine-needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) of
ovarian lumps is being increasingly used for the successful diagnosis of
ovarian tumors, although borderline cases may be difficult to diagnose by this
method. Objective: The
present study was performed to evaluate the role of US-guided FNAC in
pre-operative cytological diagnosis of ovarian masses in comparison with
histopathology and to assess the pitfalls and limitations of cytological
interpretation. Materials and Methods:
The study was conducted on 160 female patients. Diagnosis was established by
FNAC performed under image guidance (ultrasonography/computed tomography)
followed by histopathological examination. Cytologic diagnoses were compared
with the histopathological diagnosis. Results:
On cytology and histopathology comparison, concordance was found to be 90.4% in
case of malignancy, 94% in cases of suspicious for malignancy, 100% in cases of
inflammatory lesions, 50 % in cases of metastasis. Chi-square test was
performed and p value was statistically significant (p < 0.0001). Conclusion: USG-guided FNAC seems to be a relatively
safe, simple, fast and cost-effective procedure where most ovarian malignancies
either present late in their course or no screening method is available. In
addition this procedure may be useful in deciding management guidelines prior
to any surgical intervention.
Keywords: Fine-needle
aspiration cytology, Ovarian mass, Histopathology
Author Corrected: 7th December 2018 Accepted for Publication: 13th December 2018
Introduction
Ovaries
are paired pelvic female reproductive organ, frequently encountered by
neoplastic lesions either benign or malignant. The complex anatomy of ovary and
its peculiar physiology within the constant cyclical changes from puberty to
menopause give rise to number of cell types each of which is capable of giving
rise to tumors [1]. This morphological diversity of ovarian tumors poses many
challenges in diagnosis for both gynecologists and pathologists. Ovarian
cancers account for about 6% of all cancers in females [2]. The incidence of
ovarian carcinoma has steadily increased over the past 20 years. Ovarian
neoplasms are a heterogenous group of benign and malignant tumors of
epithelial, stromal and germ cell origin [3]. The clinico-pathological
evaluation of ovarian masses is a challenging field. The ovarian tumors manifest with wide spectrum of clinical,
morphological and histological features. Screening for ovarian epithelial
cancer are improved by various diagnostic modalities, Doppler color flow
ultrasonography and transvaginal ultrasonography, measurement of tumor markers
such as Serum HCG, serum CA125, serum alpha – fetoprotein placental alkaline
phosphatase and numerous, but their accessibility to the practicing
gynecologist for rural based poor population remains very limited even today [4].
Difficulty in gaining access to the tumor site is itself a major obstacle and
the wide spectrum of lesions presents a difficult picture to the pathologist.
Cytology has been underutilized as a modality for the diagnosis of ovarian
tumors. With the advent of accurate imaging techniques like ultrasonography
(USG) and computed tomography (CT) scan in detecting the ovarian lesions guided
fine needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) has assumed a definite role in diagnosis
and management [5]. The clinico-pathological evaluation of ovarian masses is a
challenging field. Difficulty in gaining access to the tumor site is itself a
major obstacle and the wide spectrum of lesions presents a difficult picture to
the pathologist. Despite the advantages, the frequent use of image-guided FNAC
for routine investigation and diagnosis of ovarian neoplasms is a controversial
field and has been the subject of much debate. This study was carried out to
assess the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound guided FNAC with histopathological
as well as to evaluate the role of cytology as a rapid and inexpensive means of
diagnosing ovarian tumors.
Material and Methods
Place of Study-
Cytology section of the department of pathology, Gujarat Cancer Research
Institute, Ahmedabad, Gujarat
Type of Study-
This is a retrospective study which included 160 cases reported in cytology
section over a period of 1 year from May 2016 to May 2017.
Sampling Methods-
Abdominal/pelvic USG-or CT-guided FNAC
Sample Collection-
After clinical workup, the patients were subjected to FNAC. The mass was
localized and aspiration was performed using a 22-to 23-gauge needle attached
to a 10 mL syringe. For deep-seated lesions, a lumbar puncture needle was used.
Several passes were made when the needle was visualized within the lesion.
Smears were prepared from the aspirate, fixed in 95% alcohol and stained using
Papanicolaou and Giemsa stains. Smears were evaluated for cellularity,
arrangement of cells, type of Epithelial cells, foamy or hemosiderin laden
macrophages, calcified or necrotic material and proteinaceous, granular, greasy
or mucoid background. Routine histology techniques were followed for
histopathology specimens. Sections were stained with H&E stain.
Inclusion Criteria- All
Female patients who presented in the outpatient section of the Department of
Obstetrics and Gynaecology and were subsequently found to have an ovarian mass
on clinical and radiological evaluation. Ovarian lesions were classified
according to WHO classification.
Exclusion
Criteria- Patients who were diagnosed outside
and patients with inadequate data were not included in this study.
Statistical
Methods- Ovarian lesions were classified
according to WHO classification. Chi square test was applied to the final data.
Results
During the period of one year, 160 cases of ovarian
lesions were evaluated by cytopathological smears and followed by
histopathological sections.
Amongst these 160 cases, evaluated cytopathologically, 20
cases were inconclusive due to inadequate sampling. Out of 140 cases where
cytological diagnosis was given 113 (80.7 %) cases were malignant (99 cases of
adenocarcinoma, 8 cases of mucinous adenocarcinoma and 6 cases of granulosa
cell tumor). In remaining 27 cases, 17 (12.14%) cases were diagnosed as suspicious
for malignancy, 4 (2.8 %) cases were inflammatory lesions (2 cases of abscess,
1 case of tuberculosis and 1 case of actinomycosis), 2 (1.4 %) cases of
metastasis and 4 (2.8 %) cases were diagnosed as negative for malignancy
(fig.1)
These 160 cases were followed by
histopathological examination, where 10 cases were inconclusive due to
inadequate sampling. In remaining 150 cases diagnosis was given as malignant in
125 (83.3%) cases, benign in 3 (2%) cases, borderline in 1(0.67%), metastasis
in 12(8%) cases, inflammatory lesion in 4 (2.6%) cases, negative for malignancy
in 3 (2%) cases and suspicious in 1 (0.67%) case. (fig.2)
Table -1: Cytology and histopathology
concordance and discordance
Final histopathology Diagnosis |
No. of cases Histology |
No. of cases Cytology |
Concordant |
Discordant |
Inconclusive |
10 |
20 |
50% |
10 |
Neg for malig. |
3 |
4 |
75% |
1 |
Inflammatory |
4 |
4 |
100% |
- |
Benign |
3 |
- |
- |
100% |
Borderline |
1 |
- |
- |
100% |
Malignant |
125 |
113 |
90.4% |
9.6% |
Metastasis |
1 |
2 |
50% |
50% |
Suspicious |
16 |
17 |
94% |
6% |
Table-2: Summary of cytology and
histopathological co-relation of ovarian masses
Histopathology Diagnosis |
Cytology Diagnosis |
|
||||||||
Inconclusive |
Neg for malignancy |
Inflammatory |
Benign |
Borderline |
Malignant |
Metastasis |
Suspicious |
Total |
||
Inconclusive |
10 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
10 |
|
Negative for malignancy |
1 |
3 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
4 |
|
Inflammatory |
- |
- |
4 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
4 |
|
Benign |
2 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
1 |
3 |
|
Borderline |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
1 |
- |
- |
1 |
|
Malignant |
4 |
1 |
- |
- |
- |
105 |
1 |
14 |
125 |
|
Metastasis |
2 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
7 |
1 |
2 |
12 |
|
Suspicious |
1 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
1 |
|
Total |
20 |
4 |
4 |
- |
- |
113 |
2 |
17 |
160 |
|
Chi- square test
was performed to correlate between cytopathological and histopathological
diagnosis and was highly significant (p < 0.0001). Chi square- 355 and p value <0.0001.
Cytological evaluation of 160 cases revealed inconclusive
diagnosis in 20 cases due to inadequate material. Out of these 20 cases, 50 %
cases i.e 10 cases were concordant (Table 1) with histopathology while in
remaining 10 cases final histopathology diagnosis was given as malignant in 4
cases (2 cases of adenocarcinoma and 2 cases of granulosa cell tumor), benign
in 2 cases (leiomyoma, mucinous cystadenoma), metastatic adenocarcinoma in 2
cases, suspicious for malignancy in 1 and negative for malignancy in 1 case
i.e. endometriosis (Table 2).
Out of 17 cases
which were diagnosed as suspicious for malignancy in cytology due to
paucicellularity, on final histopathology examination 16 cases were found to be
malignant i.e. 94 % concordance (Table
1) out of which 14 cases were found to be primary ovarian malignancy (11 cases
of adenocarcinoma, 1 case of squamous cell carcinoma, 1 case of carcinosarcoma
and 1 case of dysgerminoma), 2 cases of metastasis and 1 case was diagnosed as
benign adenofibroma. (Table 2)
On cytopathology examination 2 cases were given as
metastatic carcinoma out of which 1 case was diagnosed as metastatic carcinoma
while 1 case was diagnosed as primary ovarian adenocarcinoma (Table 2). Here
concordance was found to be 50 % (Table
1).
4 cases which were diagnosed as negative for malignancy
on cytology, on final histopathology examination 3 cases were given as negative
for malignancy i.e. 75% concordance (Table
1) while 1 case was diagnosed as poorly differentiated carcinoma of ovary
(Table 2).
On cytological evaluation 113 cases were diagnosed as
malignant out of which 99 cases were of adenocarcinoma (87.6%), 8 cases of
mucinous adenocarcinoma (7.1%) and 6 cases of sex cord tumor (5.3%) while on
histopathology 91 cases were found to be adenocarcinoma (80.5%), 8 cases of
mucinous adenocarcinoma (7.1%) (Fig 4), 6 cases of granulosa cell tumor (5.3%),
7 cases of metastatic adenocarcinoma (7.1%) and 1 case of borderline malignancy
(0.8%) (Table 2). Here concordance was found to be 90.4%. (Table 1)
In case of inflammatory lesions there was 100 % concordance between cytology and
histopathology (Table 1).
Discussion
Adnexal mass lesions are very frequent in women. Age, nulliparity, high fat diet, early
menarche, late menopause, use of infertility drugs, family history of ovarian,
breast or bowel cancer, smoking, lack of breast feeding, hormone replacement
therapy and genetic make-up of the individual are some of the risk factors for
ovarian tumors [6,7]. These may be
symptomatic or asymptomatic. Ovarian cancer produces no distinctive
symptoms as a result; most tumors
metastasize, or spread, to other abdominal organs before they are diagnosed. Metastasis can give rise
to ascites and this may be the first symptom.
Other vague symptoms are abdominal/pelvic discomfort or pressure, back/leg pain, bloating, changes in bowel function or
urinary frequency, fatigue, gastrointestinal symptoms, nausea, loss of appetite and unusual vaginal bleeding. Pelvic
examination revealing firmness, fixation,
nodularity, lack of tenderness, ascites, or cul-de-sac nodules are indicative of malignancy [8]. In reproductive age, functional cysts i.e.
follicular and luteal cysts are more common, while in peri-menopausal age
group, benign neoplasms occur more frequently [3]. Various
diagnostic methods like imaging modalities (USG, CT and MRI) and determination
of tumour marker levels (like CA-125, CEA and β-hCG), are used for the
diagnostic evaluation of ovarian tumours. However, all of them have a limited
role in defining the exact nature (benign vs. malignant) of the lesions.
Histopathology is considered the gold standard for the diagnosis of ovarian
masses, but in recent times, USG guided FNAC has become a quick,
economic and safe procedure for the early diagnosis and management of ovarian
masses. It is extremely useful
to diagnose and manage functional cysts in young nulliparous patients, in whom
an early diagnosis can help to avoid unnecessary surgery and to retain
reproductive capacity. It is also beneficial in the diagnosis of recurrent and
metastatic tumours and advanced malignancies, where poor conditions are not
suitable for laparotomy. The
differences in the reported accuracy of cytological evaluation of ovarian
masses may reflect the differences in the technique used to aspirate the lesion
(transvaginal, transabdominal, laparoscopic or during laparotomy) as
well as differences in smear preparation. There are many other factors which
may explain cyto-histopathological discrepancy. FNAC of an ovary may yield cyst
fluid, ovarian cortex, ovarian stroma, or a combination of these structures.
Secondary degenerative changes may cause inaccurate diagnosis [2]. Ovarian cyst
fluid may have occasional cells only (in a background of fluid) thus making it
difficult to diagnose accurately. Malignant cells in the ovary may not be
uniformly distributed in the organ [9] due to tumor heterogeneity
and thus add to discrepancy as in histopathology multiple sectioning prevents
misdiagnosis.
Primary
tumors of ovaries have an incidence of an extensively diverse spectrum; hence,
the impression on image guided cytology may not always accurately corroborate
with the histopathology. Mucinous neoplasms are an important source of
difficulties in diagnosis. The main reasons for this are large size of mucinous
neoplasms, tumor heterogeneity and limitation of sampling in fnac. Borderline
tumors cannot be diagnosed on fnac as foci of invasion cannot be assessed. This
category of ovarian neoplasm constitutes a grey zone. In cases of malignant
tumors, FNAC has a definitive role in evaluating patients with suspected
recurrence of the tumor and to assess spread of the disease. The suspicion of
malignancy was based on paucicellularity of smears which had few atypical cells
but not enough to commit to a diagnosis. This was supported by clinical
findings, radiological observations or serum markers in these cases. Image‑guided.
In all the above cases multiple sampling of sample in histology overcomes these
limitations and thus helps in the final diagnosis.
FNAC is
justified as it is a relatively quick, economical and patient‑friendly
procedure for diagnosis of malignancy, with minimum morbidity. It is extremely
useful in young patients with benign lesions, such as benign cysts, where an
early diagnosis can help in avoiding surgery in some cases. It also helps in
minimizing unnecessary surgery in post-menopausal patients and those at high
risk for surgery [10,11] and guide further management of the patient. The major
drawback is that FNAC can lead to rupture and spillage of tumor cells into the
peritoneal cavity and can potentially cause upstaging of a malignant tumor.
However, there is no literature available to support this. Despite the
potential disadvantages, image-guided FNAC has an important role to play in the
diagnosis and management of most ovarian masses.
Conclusion
To
conclude, image-guided FNAC is a quick, easy, fairly sensitive, specific and
cost-effective modality for the preoperative diagnosis of malignant as well as
benign ovarian masses with minimal morbidity, pending histological
confirmation. Accurately identifying borderline tumours and false negative
cytological analysis due to low cellularity or secondary degenerative changes
may be its limitations. Despite potential disadvantages FNAC can serve as a
highly efficient means of early diagnosis of ovarian neoplasms [12].
Contribution By authors:
Dr. Majal Shah, Dr, Trupti Patel- Diagnostic Work, Dr. Nisha Khanna- Manuscript Preparation, Dr. Biren Parikh, Dr. Brinda Chandibhamar- Statistical Analysis, Dr. Dhaval Jetly- Proof Reading.
Financial Support- Nil
Conflict of Interest- None
References