Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
How well cytology finds gut tumors in dogs and cats
By Bonfanti, Ugo et al.·Published in Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association·2006·Clinica Veterinaria Gran Sasso, Italy·View original on PubMed →
PetCaseFinder translated the abstract of this peer-reviewed paper into plain English so pet owners can read it. We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above. How we work →
Original publication title: Diagnostic value of cytologic examination of gastrointestinal tract tumors in dogs and cats: 83 cases (2001-2004).
Plain-English summary
A group of 38 dogs and 44 cats with confirmed tumors in their gastrointestinal tract underwent tests to see how well cytology (cell examination) could identify these tumors. The study found that impression smears (a method of collecting cells) were much more reliable than fine-needle aspirates (another method) in matching the tumor type with the final diagnosis. In fact, 94% of the impression smears agreed with the histologic diagnosis, while only 72% of the fine-needle aspirates did. This suggests that using impression smears could be a better option for diagnosing gastrointestinal tumors in pets.
People also search for: dog gastrointestinal tumor diagnosis · cat tumor cytology results · fine-needle aspirate vs impression smear for pets
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine results of cytologic examination of fine-needle aspirates and impression smears of gastrointestinal tract tumors in dogs and cats. DESIGN: Retrospective case series. ANIMALS: 38 dogs and 44 cats with histologically confirmed gastrointestinal tract tumors. PROCEDURES: Results of cytologic examination of fine-needle aspirates (n = 67) or impression smears (31) were compared with the histologic diagnosis, and extent of agreement was classified as complete, partial, none, or undetermined. RESULTS: For 48 of the 67 (72%) fine-needle aspirates, there was complete or partial agreement between the cytologic and histologic diagnoses. For 12 (18%) aspirates, the extent of agreement could not be determined because the cytologic specimen was considered unsatisfactory. For 29 of the 31 (94%) impression smears, there was complete agreement between the cytologic and histologic diagnoses, and for 2 (6%), there was partial agreement. None of the impression smears were considered unsatisfactory. Proportion of samples with complete agreement and proportion of samples with complete or partial agreement were significantly higher for impression smears than for fine-needle aspirates. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Results suggest that there was moderate agreement between results of cytologic examination of fine-needle aspirates from dogs and cats with gastrointestinal tract neoplasia and the definitive histologic diagnosis. The agreement between results of cytologic examination of impression smears and the histologic diagnosis appeared to be higher.
Find similar cases for your pet
PetCaseFinder finds other peer-reviewed reports of pets with the same symptoms, plus a plain-English summary of what was tried across them.
Search related cases →Original publication on PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17014362/