Table 4.
Diagnostic efficacy of CP, CS, and CB methods in EUS-FNA cytology
| Final diagnosis | CP |
CS |
CB |
|||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Malignant | Benign | Malignant | Benign | Malignant | Benign | |
| Malignant | 17 | 11 | 24 | 4 | 14 | 10 |
| Benign | 0 | 20 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 18 |
| Sensitivity, % | 60.7 | 85.7 | 58.3 | |||
| Specificity, % | 100 | 100 | 100 | |||
| Accuracy, % | 77.1 | 91.7 | 76.2 | |||
| PPV, % | 100 | 100 | 100 | |||
| NPV, % | 64.5 | 83.3 | 64.3 | |||
CP, CellPrepPlus; CS, conventional smears; CB, cell block; EUS-FNA, endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration; PPV, positive predictive values; NPV, negative predictive values.