• 1.

    Murray M, Robinson PB, McKeating FJ, et al. Primary gastric neoplasia in the dog: a clinicopathological study. Vet Rec 1972;91:474479.

  • 2.

    Patnaik AK, Hurvitz AI, Johnson GF. Canine gastrointestinal neoplasm. Vet Pathol 1977;14:547555.

  • 3.

    Couto CG, Rutgers HC, Sherding RG, et al. Gastrointestinal lymphoma in 20 dogs. J Vet Intern Med 1989;3:7378.

  • 4.

    Brunnert SR, Dee LA, Herron AJ, et al. Gastric extramedullary plasmacytoma in a dog. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1992;200:15011502.

  • 5.

    Kapatkin AL, Mullen HS, Matthiesen DT, et al. Leiomyosarcoma in dogs: 44 cases (1983–1988). J Am Vet Med Assoc 1992;201:10771079.

  • 6.

    Kerpsack SJ, Birchard SJ. Removal of leiomyomas and other noninvasive masses from the cardiac region of the canine stomach. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 1994;30:500504.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7.

    Head KW, Cullen JM, Dubielzig RR, et al. Histological classification of gastric tumors of domestic animals. In: Head KW, Cullen JM, Dubielzig RR, et al, eds. Histologic classification of tumors of the alimentary system of domestic animals. 2nd series. Vol X. Washington, DC: Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, 2003;73110.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8.

    Engle GG, Brodey RS. A retrospective study of 395 feline neoplasms. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 1969;5:2131.

  • 9.

    Turk MA, Gallina AM, Russell TS. Nonhematopoietic gastrointestinal neoplasia in cats: a retrospective study of 44 cases. Vet Pathol 1981;18:614620.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10.

    Birchard SJ, Couto CG, Johnson S. Nonlymphoid intestinal neoplasia in 32 dogs and 14 cats. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 1986;22:533537.

  • 11.

    Carpenter JL, Andrews LK, Holzworth J. Tumors and tumorlike lesions. In: Holzworth J, ed. Diseases of the cat: medicine and surgery. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Co, 1987;406596.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12.

    Cribb AE. Feline gastrointestinal adenocarcinoma: a review and retrospective study. Can Vet J 1988;29:709712.

  • 13.

    Jergens AE, Andreasen CB, Hagemoser WA, et al. Cytologic examination of exfoliative specimens obtained during endoscopy for diagnosis of gastrointestinal tract disease in dogs and cats. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1998;213:17551759.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14.

    Messick JB, Haddad T, Kitchell B, et al. Abdominal mass in a dog. Vet Clin Pathol 2001;30:2527.

  • 15.

    Caruso KJ, Meinkoth JH, Cowell RL, et al. A distal colonic mass in a dog. Vet Clin Pathol 2003;30:2730.

  • 16.

    Crystal MA, Pennick DG, Matz ME, et al. Use of ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy and automated core biopsy for the diagnosis of gastrointestinal diseases in small animals. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 1993;34:438444.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17.

    Rivers BJ, Walter PA, Johnston GR, et al. Canine gastric neoplasia: utility of ultrasonography in diagnosis. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 1997;33:144155.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18.

    Pennick DG, Moore AS, Gliatto J. Ultrasonography of canine gastric epithelial neoplasia. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 1998;39:342348.

  • 19.

    Das DK, Pant CS. Fine needle aspiration cytologic diagnosis of gastrointestinal tract lesions. Acta Cytol 1994;38:723729.

  • 20.

    Ballo MS, Guy CD. Percutaneous fine-needle aspiration of gastrointestinal wall lesions with image guidance. Diagn Cytopathol 2001;24:1620.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21.

    Marco-Domenech SF, Gil-Sanchez S, Fernandez-Garcia P, et al. Sonographically guided percutaneous biopsy of gastrointestinal tract lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001;176:147151.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22.

    Jhala N, Jhala D. Gastrointestinal tract cytology: advancing horizons. Adv Anat Pathol 2003;10:261277.

  • 23.

    Griffiths GL, Lumsden JH, Valli VEO. Fine-needle aspiration cytology and histologic correlations in canine tumors. Vet Clin Pathol 1984;13:1317.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24.

    Vos JH, van den Ingh TS, van Mil FN. Non-exfoliative canine cytology: the value of fine needle aspiration and scraping cytology. Vet Q 1989;11:222236.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25.

    Wallon CJ, Gilbert S, Snaps S, et al. Imprint and brush cytology in the diagnosis of canine intranasal tumors. J Small Anim Pract 1996;37:423427.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26.

    Roth L. Comparison of liver cytology and biopsy diagnosis in dogs and cats: 56 cases. Vet Clin Pathol 2001;30:3538.

  • 27.

    Cohen M, Bohling MW, Wright JC, et al. Evaluation of sensitivity and specificity of cytologic examination: 269 cases (1999–2000). J Am Vet Med Assoc 2003;222:964967.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28.

    Wang KY, Panciera DL, Al-Rukibat RK, et al. Accuracy of ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of the liver and cytologic findings in dogs and cats: 97 cases (1990–2000). J Am Vet Med Assoc 2004;224:7578.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 29.

    Raskin RE. General categories of cytologic interpretation. In: Atlas of canine and feline cytology. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Co, 2001;1933.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 30.

    LaRock RG, Ginn PE. Immunohistochemical staining characteristics of canine gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Vet Pathol 1997;34:303311.

Advertisement

Diagnostic value of cytologic examination of gastrointestinal tract tumors in dogs and cats: 83 cases (2001–2004)

View More View Less
  • 1 Clinica Veterinaria Gran Sasso, via Donatello 26, 20131, Milano, Italy.
  • | 2 Pronto Soccorso Veterinario, via Defendente 29/a, 25084, Lodi, Italy.
  • | 3 Clinica Veterinaria Albese, via Vivaro 25, 12051, Alba (CN), Italy.
  • | 4 Clinica Veterinaria S. Marco, via Sorio 114/c, 35141, Padova, Italy.
  • | 5 Clinica Veterinaria L'Arca, vico Cacciottoli 46, 80129, Napoli, Italy.
  • | 6 Laboratorio Biodiversity, via Corfù 71, 25124, Brescia, Italy.
  • | 7 Clinica Veterinaria Pirani, via Majakovski 2/L,M,N, 42100, Reggio Emilia, Italy.
  • | 8 Clinic for Small Animal Internal Medicine, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Zürich, Winterthurerstrasse 260, 8057 Zürich, Switzerland.

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.

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.

Contributor Notes

Dr. Bonfanti's present address is Nerviano Medical Sciences S.r.l., viale Pasteur 10, 20014, Nerviano (MI), Italy.

Presented at the 7th Annual Meeting of the European Society of Veterinary Clinical Pathology and the European College of Veterinary Clinical Pathology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands, June 2005.

Address correspondence to Dr. Bonfanti.