Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
How cytology helps diagnose mouth tumors in dogs and cats
By Bonfanti, U et al.·Published in Veterinary journal (London, England : 1997)·2015·Biessea Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory, 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 We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above.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 cytological analysis of tumours and tumour-like lesions of the oral cavity in dogs and cats: a prospective study on 114 cases.
Plain-English summary
A study looked at how well different methods of collecting samples from oral tumors in dogs and cats can help diagnose these growths. The researchers found that fine-needle aspiration (FNA), fine-needle insertion (FNI), and impression smear (IS) techniques were all effective in identifying whether the lesions were cancerous or not. In dogs, the accuracy rates for these methods were very high, around 98%, while in cats, they were also impressive, around 95%. This means that if your pet has a growth in their mouth, these sampling methods can provide reliable information for diagnosis.
People also search for: dog oral tumor diagnosis · cat mouth lump treatment · fine-needle aspiration for pets
Abstract
Neoplastic or non-neoplastic masses are common findings in the oral cavity of cats and dogs. The aim of this prospective study was to compare the results of cytological examinations of lesions of the oral cavity following fine-needle aspiration (FNA), fine-needle insertion (FNI), and impression smear (IS) with histopathological results being considered as the diagnostic gold standard. In total, 85 dogs and 29 cats were included in the study. Cases were included when histology and cytology (FNA, FNI, and/or IS) were available from the same lesion; κ-agreement and accuracy between cytological and histopathological results were calculated. Eighteen cytological specimens were excluded, with a retrieval rate of 84.2%. Of the 96 samples analysed, FNA, FNI, and IS were available from 80, 76, and 73 animals, respectively. Overall, 60/67 (89.6%) and 21/29 (72.4%) lesions were neoplastic in dogs and cats, respectively, with the remaining being non-neoplastic. For all lesions, κ-values obtained by FNA, FNI, and IS were in dogs 0.83 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.77-0.90), 0.87 (95% CI: 0.81-0.93) and 0.75 (95% CI: 0.67-0.84), respectively, and in cats 0.92 (95% CI: 0.87-0.96), 0.92 (95% CI: 0.88-0.97) and 0.86 (95% CI: 0.79-0.92), respectively. The diagnostic accuracies of FNA, FNI, and IS in dogs with neoplasia were 98.2%, 98.1%, and 91.8%, respectively, and in cats with neoplasia were 95.6%, 95.6% and 95.8%, respectively. In conclusion, the high agreement with histopathology suggests that cytological examinations by FNI, FNA, and IS are all appropriate methods to correctly diagnose lesions of the oral cavity in dogs and cats.
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/25466576/