Current Salivary Glands Biopsy Techniques: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Beatrix Zheng and Version 1 by Matteo Pellegrini.

Biopsy is a surgical procedure performed to collect a portion of tissue or organ for diagnostic studies. The aim of the present manuscript is to describe state-of-the-art major and minor salivary gland biopsy techniques and assess the indications and complications of other salivary gland biopsy techniques. A search was performed using the following MeSH terms: biopsy, fine-needle biopsies, image-guided biopsies, frozen sections, and salivary glands disease. A current overview of major and minor salivary glands biopsy techniques was provided. In the oncological field, a comparison was made between the most widely used biopsy method, ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy (US-FNAB), and an alternative method, ultrasound-guided core needle biopsy (US-guided CNB), highlighting the advantages and disadvantages of each. Finally, intra-operative frozen sections (IOFSs) were presented as an additional intraoperative diagnostic method. Minor salivary gland biopsy (MSGB) is the simplest diagnostic method used by clinicians in the diagnosis of inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. In neoplastic lesions, US-FNAB represents the most performed method; however, due to its low diagnostic accuracy for non-neoplastic specimens, US-guided CNB has been introduced as an alternative method. 

  • biopsy
  • fine-needle aspiration biopsy
  • frozen sections
  • imaging guided biopsy
  • minor salivary glands
  • salivary glands

1. Introduction

Biopsy is a surgical procedure performed to collect a portion of tissue or organ for diagnostic studies, which must be properly preserved and processed through marking systems and then histopathologically examined [1].
Salivary gland biopsy can be performed to diagnose diseases of salivary parenchyma, such as degenerative and inflammatory diseases, or amyloidosis and sarcoidosis [2]. This biopsy can be performed using simple and minimally invasive methods, such as minor salivary gland biopsy (MSGB); in particular, lower lip mucosa is considered to be the least invasive collection site for the collection of an adequate diagnostic sample [1].
Common histopathological findings, indicative of Sjogren’s syndrome, are represented by clusters of monocellular immune cells which are present in the exocrine glandular tissues and are responsible for atrophy [3]. The importance of conducting a histopathological examination of the minor salivary glands is underlined by the inclusion of a positive biopsy in the diagnostic criteria proposed by the American-European Consensus Group (AECG) [3].
MSGB is also effective to help diagnose amyloidosis, representing a much less invasive and faster method than kidney biopsy [4,5][4][5]. Furthermore, the MSGB method saves time on the diagnosis of the pathology, which can quickly lead to death in the case of diagnostic delay [6].
Another biopsy method used is the open technique, which can be variably complex and invasive, and involves various secreting tissues; they are considered surgical procedures, not free from potential local and systemic complications [7], such as paresthesias, intra- and postoperative bleeding, pain, local postoperative discomfort, swelling, ecchymosis, surgical wound infection, suture dehiscence, and, finally, keloid development [8]. A reduction of intra- and postoperative patient discomfort can be achieved by following anatomical and surgical criteria while ensuring an adequate specimen to perform microscopic diagnosis [9]. This type of biopsy can be useful for both incisional and excisional sampling, and it involves major salivary glands.
There are biopsy techniques mainly indicated in the oncology field, such as ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy (US-FNAB) and ultrasound-guided core needle biopsy (US-guided CNB), which could be useful in the preoperative diagnosis of benign and malignant neoplasms and pleomorphic adenomas [10].
However, due to the histological complexity of some neoplasms, it is difficult to diagnose the exact nature of salivary lesions. In these clinical conditions, intra-operative frozen sections (IOFSs) offer the best guarantee of optimal histologic results because of the possibility of evaluating the tissue before the end of the surgery, thus differentiating malignant from benign lesions and performing more aggressive surgery at once [11].

2. Current Salivary Glands Biopsy Techniques

Major and minor salivary glands biopsy involve the removal of a variable amount of glandular parenchyma, affected by local or systemic inflammatory processes, through a surgical-operative approach defined as an open incisional biopsy; excisional biopsy involves removal of the whole lesion, including a variable amount of bordering glandular tissue [44][12]. In the SS, characterized by an immune-mediated inflammatory process, it is essential to perform an incisional biopsy of the salivary glands that can express histo-cyto-pathological features to confirm the presence of the pathology. Submandibular glands clearly express pathognomonic changes of SS, yet there are no incisional biopsy techniques, probably because surgical procedures are too invasive and general anesthesia would be required [5].
Two techniques of incisional biopsy of the sublingual glands are reported. Pennec’s technique provides a linear incision from the oral floor mucosa to the adherent gingival mucosa, from the first lower premolar to the lower lateral incisor, without reporting complications. The diagnostic sensitivity and specificity are found to be 72% and 52%, respectively [15][13]. Adam’s technique suggests a lateral incision to the Wharton’s duct, from the retro-incisive papilla, extending about one centimeter posteriorly, presenting the risk of possible transient post-surgical swelling of the oral floor. No information regarding diagnostic accuracy is reported [20][14]. A variation to this technique has been proposed by Baurmash and Worth, performing a small Y-shaped superior concavity incision surrounding the auricular lobe inferiorly, without reporting data regarding diagnostic sensitivity and specificity [21][15]. Complications associated with parotid biopsy techniques, such as transient alteration of pre-auricular surface sensitivity, are uncommon [50][16]. Palate biopsy can be performed following the technique proposed by Eisenbud, which involves an incision approximately 1 cm from the midline, near the mesial aspect of the second molar, at the border between the hard and soft palate, using a punch biopsy approximately 5 mm in diameter. This technique could result in a postoperative hemorrhagic complication. No information regarding diagnostic sensitivity and specificity accuracy is reported [48][17].
Finally, several techniques have been suggested for MSGB, which have in common an interest in the glandular units of the lower labial mucosa. The aims to be achieved should include minimal surgical trauma, incisions as small and superficial as possible to determine minimum bleeding, minimize surgical injuries to peripheral nerve endings, reducing the hypo-sensitivity events to external and internal labial surfaces, collect a sufficient volume of glandular structures and, finally, reduce local postoperative complications, especially mid- and long-term paresthesia [32][18].
In chronological order, the first technique described was by Chisholm and Mason in 1968, proposing a 3 × 1 cm elliptical incision reaching the muscular layer of the lower lip. This technique has been applied to 40 patients, and no major postoperative complications or information regarding its diagnostic accuracy has been reported [16][19]. In 1975, Greenspan proposed a linear incision of approximately 1.5–2 cm on the lower labial mucosa, parallel to the vermilion border and lateral to the midline. This technique was applied to 75 cases and only 1 case presented a 1 cm2 area of localized anesthesia of the lower lip for several months. No information regarding diagnostic sensitivity and specificity is reported [17][20]. Daniels proposed a single 2 cm horizontal incision parallel to the edge of the vermilion in the center of the lower lip, between the midline and the corner of the lower lip [22][21]. This technique was applied in 496 patients (3 cases reported labio-sensory complications) with a sensitivity of 82.4% and specificity of 86.2% [22,23][21][22]. In 1985, Fox considered the use of mid-palpebral calazio forceps to circumscribe the labial incision area, without reporting information regarding the number of cases with postoperative complications and sensitivity and specificity [24][23]. In 1988, Marx proposed Greenspan’s technique again, suggesting a 3 × 0.75 cm incision. This technique was applied to 77 cases, reporting 3 cases of partial loss of lip sensitivity (one of which persisted for more than 2 years) and no information regarding diagnostic accuracy [25][24]. One year later, Delgado and Mosqueda suggested a 10 mm longitudinal incision on the labial mucosa, anterior to the inferior canine. This technique has been applied to 19 cases, no postoperative complications have been reported, and there is no information regarding its diagnostic accuracy [49][25]. In 1992, Richards proposed a single linear horizontal incision of the mucosal tissue of approximately 1 cm. This technique was applied to 58 cases, of which 2 showed reduced sensitivity in an area ipsilateral to the surgical incision, and reporting sufficient sensitivity and specificity to diagnose most cases of SS, without reporting the percentages [18][26]. In 2000, Seoane used calazio forceps, performing an elliptical horizontal incision of 1 cm x 4 mm, without reporting information regarding number of cases, possible postoperative complications, and sensitivity and specificity data [26][27]. In the following year, Peloro described the X-marks technique, i.e., once the salivary glands’ papules are highlighted with a surgical pen, a superficial incision of the labial mucosa of 1.5–2 mm is performed and, finally, a second incision is made perpendicular to the first one. There are no data on number of cases, possible postoperative complications, and diagnostic accuracy [27][28]. In the same year, Guevara-Gutierrez et al. suggested the punch biopsy technique, using a 4 mm diameter punch scalpel, lightly penetrating the epithelium of the lower lip, between the midline and the labial commissure. This technique was applied to 50 cases (of which 2 cases manifested transient lip numbness) with a sensitivity of 82.4% and specificity of 86.2% [50][16]. In 2007, Teppo and Revonta described 2–3 mm horizontal micro-incisions, shelling the glands to the surface and gently removing them with scissors and surgical forceps. This technique was applied to 191 cases, of which 1 case presented with pyogenic granuloma of the biopsy wound, and in 82% of patients the biopsy result and subsequent clinical diagnosis were correlated [28][29]. Finally, in 2020, Comini et al. proposed a minimally invasive technique, using a sharp-tipped needle to pull out the minor salivary glands and remove them, reducing invasiveness and local trauma, representing one of the most recommended approaches for minimally invasive excision of the lower lip glands. This technique was performed in 569 patients without any complications and with an accuracy of 97.6% [29][30].
The literature review shows a high heterogeneity of MSGB techniques used; in fact, most authors described different techniques according to their clinical and experimental experience. In addition, the sensitivity and specificity or diagnostic accuracy of the biopsy technique is reported for only a few studies, highlighting that Comini’s technique presents the most satisfactory results in the diagnosis of SS.
It is possible to state that MSGB represents the technique recommended to clinicians for a histo-pathological evaluation, verifying the presence of one of the main classification criteria for the diagnosis of SS, enunciated in 2016 by the American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism (ACR/EULAR) [33][31]. In addition, MSGB allows for histopathological diagnosis of other inflammatory or immune-reactive diseases of salivary glandular parenchyma, thanks to value scales and histo-morphologic criteria proposed by Chisholm and Mason, Greenspan and Daniels, and Tarpley. The diagnostic criteria of Chisholm and Mason, established in 1968, include five grades of glandular tissue impairment (0 to 4), based on the presence of peri-glandular lymphocytic infiltration [19][32]. Greenspan and Daniels in 1974 proposed a second classification, adding the concept of focus score (FS), defined as the number of lymphocyte foci in a 4 mm2 area of glandular tissue, and focal lymphocytic sialadenitis (FLS) when FS > 1 is detected [52][33]. Finally, in the same year, Tarpley introduced the parameters of possible acinar destruction and peri-ductal and peri-acinar connective fibrosis [34].
Frequently, in oncology, US-FNAB represents a useful method to perform a cytopathological diagnosis of likely or confirmed neoplastic lesions, usually following radiographs, which are difficult to investigate with traditional biopsy techniques [42][35]. The greater rapidity and ease of execution, less painful perception, and high repeatability represent the most obvious advantages of US-FNAB compared with incisional biopsy, improving diagnostic accuracy [34]. It can also be performed during pregnancy, there are no contraindications, and anesthesia is not necessary because it would alter the sensitivity to palpation, reducing the accuracy of injection, it is also minimally invasive, quick to perform, and well tolerated by the patient [36]. The patient may experience occasional pain or discomfort in the postoperative period, rarely a subcutaneous hematoma may appear, and exceptionally a hemorrhagic effusion, organ damage, or surgical wound infection [30][37].
US-FNAB categorizes most benign (95%) and malignant (93%) salivary gland neoplasms, reducing its accuracy to 73% when the specimen is non-neoplastic [37][38]. However, a recent systematic review of the literature found that the cytologic diagnosis performed on specimens obtained by parotid US-FNAB was uncertain in 8% of cases, increasing the probability of malignancy at final diagnosis by almost twofold, due to the absence of a standardized terminology system and unambiguous classification for salivary neoplasms [42][35]. The first categorization of cytologic diagnoses performed by needle aspiration was performed by Fundakowski et al. [38][39]. Subsequently, following its modification, the Temple (Philadelphia, PA, USA) classification system and the Milan system were developed, improving inter- and intra-institutional reliability [45][40]. Temple’s system stratifies the risk of occurrence of neoplastic processes into six categories, whereas Milan’s system not only stratifies the risk of occurrence of neoplasms into six categories, but also associates the need for treatment [39,45][40][41]. These systems improved clinical decision-making and preoperative counselling [45][40].
Since the cytological diagnosis of needle aspiration specimens has reduced accuracy for non-neoplastic specimens, US-guided CNB has been introduced as an alternative diagnostic method in the preoperative evaluation of salivary gland lesions due to its high sensitivity and specificity [42][35]. US-guided CNB is a method that allows collecting tissue fragments, including both the peripheral and central portion of the lesion, under an ultrasound guide, allowing the collection of a greater amount of cytological material than needle aspiration, preserving more of the histological architecture of the specimen, evaluating the extracapsular tumor invasion, and more precisely classifying the lesion [43,46][42][43]. After harvesting, the material is fixed in 10% formalin, placed in a paraffin block, 4–5 μm thick sections are made, and finally stained with various reagents to evaluate the architecture, cell morphology, and relationships of the lesion with the surrounding healthy glandular tissue [42,43][35][42]. Immunohistochemical staining appears to be more reliable in samples obtained by percutaneous ultrasound-guided biopsy [46][43]. Finally, the misdiagnosis rate for US-guided CNB is 1.6%, compared with 8% for US-FNAB [40][44].
Studies have shown that the main complication appears to be the appearance of a hematoma, and the risk of tumor spread is minimal [40][44]. However, there are some disadvantages associated with its performance: it is more painful than US-FNAB and, consequently, local anesthesia is required; additionally, since it removes more tissue, if it is improperly performed it may result in greater postoperative morbidity [47][45].
IOFSs represent an additional biopsy method to improve the diagnostic underperformance of US-FNAB, whose diagnostic outcome will guide the therapeutic strategy [47][45]. To quickly highlight the nature of the lesion and the completeness of the surgical excision, the anatomical piece is taken during surgery, subsequently placed in a special gel, frozen at -35°C, sections of few μm thickness are made, laid on a slide, and, finally, stained and analyzed under a microscope [30][37]. The sensitivity and specificity of IOFSs were found to be 80–90% and 98–99%, respectively, according to the restudyearch considered [31,41][46][47]. Complications are comparable to those discussed in relation to incisional salivary gland biopsy [47][45].
This restudyearch could be helpful to clinicians as it is an overview as well as a comprehensive and exhaustive guide of the indications and main biopsy techniques of the salivary glands, comparing their complications so that clinicians can independently choose the open surgical technique. In addition, in the presence of salivary gland tumors, it is important for clinicians to be familiar with the most appropriate biopsy techniques in making a prior or intraoperative diagnosis: US-FNAB, US-guided CNB, or IOFSs.

References

  1. Edelstein, R.; Kilipiris, G.E.; Machalekova, K.; Mouzalini, E.; Slobodianuk, A.; Javorka, V. Accuracy of minor salivary gland biopsy in the diagnosis of Sjögren syndrome. Bratisl. Lek. Listy 2021, 122, 454–460.
  2. Carubbi, F.; Alunno, A.; Gerli, R.; Giacomelli, R. Histopathology of Salivary Glands; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; Volume 70, pp. 146–154.
  3. van Stein-Callenfels, D.; Tan, J.; Bloemena, E.; van Vugt, R.M.; Voskuyl, A.E.; Santana, N.T.; van der Waal, I. The role of a labial salivary gland biopsy in the diagnostic procedure for Sjögren’s syndrome; a study of 94 cases. Med. Oral Patol. Oral Cir. Bucal. 2014, 19, e372-6.
  4. Lopes, A.I.; Machado-Neves, R.; Honavar, M.; Pereira, P.R. The role of minor salivary glands’ biopsy in the diagnosis of Sjögren’s syndrome and other systemic diseases. Eur. J. Intern. Med. 2021, 94, 69–72.
  5. Fatihi, E.; Zahiri, K.; Hachim, K.; Fadel, H.; Benghanem, G.M.; Sqalli, S.; Ramdani, B.; Zaïd, D. Intérêt de la biopsie des glandes salivaires accessoires dans l’amylose . Rev. Med. Interne. 1999, 20, 759–761.
  6. Wong, S.Y.; Wong, Y.S.; Nazri, F.I.; Musa, A.N.; Mohd Zim, M.A. Primary Systemic Amyloidosis with Cardiac and Renal Involvement. Cureus 2022, 14, e25194.
  7. Chaurasia, J.K.; Gupta, V.; Mayank, V.; Tiwari, I.R.; Joshi, D.; Goel, G.; Kapoor, N. Role of nuclear morphometry in diagnosis of salivary gland neoplasms. Diagn. Cytopathol. 2020, 48, 1181–1193.
  8. Ton, E.; Kruize, A.A. How to perform and analyse biopsies in relation to connective tissue diseases. Best Pract. Res. Clin. Rheumatol. 2009, 23, 233–255.
  9. Bautista-Vargas, M.; Vivas, A.J.; Tobón, G.J. Minor salivary gland biopsy: Its role in the classification and prognosis of Sjögren’s syndrome. Autoimmun. Rev. 2020, 19, 102690.
  10. Wong, D.S.; Li, G.K. The role of fine-needle aspiration cytology in the management of parotid tumors: A critical clinical appraisal. Head Neck 2000, 22, 469–473.
  11. Wong, D.S. Frozen section during parotid surgery revisited: Efficacy of its applications and changing trend of indications. Head Neck 2002, 24, 191–197.
  12. Pontarini, E.; Coleby, R.; Bombardieri, M. Cellular and Molecular Diversity in Sjogren’s Syndrome Salivary Glands: Towards a Better Definition of Disease Subsets. Semin. Immunol. 2021; in press.
  13. Pennec, Y.L.; Leroy, J.P.; Jouquan, J.; Lelong, A.; Katsikis, P.; Youinou, P. Comparison of labial and sublingual salivary gland biopsies in the diagnosis of Sjogren’s syndrome. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 1990, 49, 37–39.
  14. Berquin, K.; Mahy, P.; Weynand, B.; Reychler, H. Accessory or sublingual salivary gland biopsy to assess systemic disease: A comparative retrospective study. Eur. Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2006, 263, 233–236.
  15. Baurmash, H. Parotid biopsy technique. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2005, 63, 1556–1557.
  16. Guevara-Gutiérrez, E.; Tlacuilo-Parra, A.; Minjares-Padilla, L.M. Minor Salivary Gland Punch Biopsy for Evaluation of Sjögren’s Syndrome. J. Clin. Rheumatol. 2001, 7, 401–402.
  17. Eisenbud, L.; Platt, N.; Stern, M.; D’Angelo, W.; Sumner, P. Palatal biopsy as a diagnostic aid in the study of connective tissue diseases. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. 1973, 35, 642–648.
  18. Wijaya, C.; Ramli, R.R.; Khoo, S.G. Dry surgical field minor salivary gland harvest using a chalazion clamp for sicca syndrome. J. Laryngol. Otol. 2019, 133, 419–423.
  19. Chisholm, D.M.; Mason, D.K. Labial salivary gland biopsy in Sjogren’s disease. J. Clin. Pathol. 1968, 21, 656–660.
  20. Greenspan, J.S.; Daniels, T.E.; Talal, N.; Sylvester, R.A. The histopathology of Sjögren’s syndrome in labial salivary gland biopsies. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. 1974, 37, 217–229.
  21. Daniels, T.E. Labial salivary gland biopsy in sjögren’s syndrome. Assessment as a diagnostic criterion in 362 suspected cases. Arthritis Rheum. 1984, 27, 147–156.
  22. Vitali, C.; Moutsopoulos, H.M.; Bombardieri, S. The European Community Study Group on diagnostic criteria for Sjögren’s syndrome. Sensitivity and specificity of tests for ocular and oral involvement in Sjögren’s syndrome. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 1994, 53, 637–647.
  23. Fox, P.C. Simplified Biopsy Technique for Labial Minor Salivary Glands. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 1985, 75, 592–593.
  24. Marx, R.E.; Hartman, K.S.; Rethman, K.V. A prospective study comparing incisional labial to incisional parotid biopsies in the detection and confirmation of sarcoidosis, Sjögren’s disease, sialosis and lymphoma. J. Rheumatol. 1988, 15, 621–629.
  25. Delgado, W.A.; Mosqueda, A. A highly sensitive method for diagnosis of secondary amyloidosis by labial salivary gland biopsy. J. Oral Pathol. Med. 1989, 18, 310–314.
  26. Richards, A.; Mutlu, S.; Scully, C.; Maddison, P. Complications associated with labial salivary gland biopsy in the investigation of connective tissue disorders. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 1992, 51, 996–997.
  27. Seoane, J.; Varela-Centelles, P.I.; Diz-Dios, P.; Romero, M. Use of Chalazion Forceps to Ease Biopsy of Minor Salivary Glands. Laryngoscope 2000, 110, 486–487.
  28. Peloro, T.M.; Ramsey, M.L.; Marks, V.J. Surgical Pearl: “X” marks the spot for the salivary gland biopsy. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 2001, 45, 122–123.
  29. Teppo, H.; Revonta, M. A follow-up study of minimally invasive lip biopsy in the diagnosis of Sjögren’s syndrome. Clin. Rheumatol. 2007, 26, 1099–1103.
  30. Comini, L.V.; Lazio, M.S.; Taverna, C.; Luparello, P.; Maggiore, G.; Martelli, F.; Novelli, L.; Santoro, G.P. A new, easy, and swift technique for minor salivary gland biopsy in Sjogren’s syndrome. Laryngoscope 2020, 130, 873–875.
  31. Shiboski, C.H.; Shiboski, S.C.; Seror, R.; Criswell, L.A.; Labetoulle, M.; Lietman, T.M.; Rasmussen, A.; Scofield, H.; Vitali, C.; Bowman, S.J.; et al. 2016 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism Classification Criteria for Primary Sjögren’s Syndrome: A Consensus and Data-Driven Methodology Involving Three International Patient Cohorts. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2017, 69, 35–45.
  32. Pan, X.; Huang, F.; Pan, Z.; Tian, M. Treatment of serologically negative Sjögren’s syndrome with tacrolimus: A case report. J. Int. Med. Res. 2020, 48, 300060519893838.
  33. Tsukamoto, M.; Suzuki, K.; Tsunoda, K.; Ikeura, K.; Kameyama, K.; Takeuchi, T. Value of labial salivary gland histopathology for diagnosis of Sjögren’s syndrome in patients with anti-centromere antibody positivity. Int. J. Rheum. Dis. 2020, 23, 1024–1029.
  34. Manzo, C. Labial salivary gland biopsy and secondary Sjögren’s syndrome: Where we are and where we want to be. Reumatologia 2019, 57, 354–355.
  35. Cho, J.; Kim, J.; Lee, J.S.; Chee, C.G.; Kim, Y.; Choi, S.I. Comparison of core needle biopsy and fine-needle aspiration in diagnosis of malignant salivary gland neoplasm: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Head Neck 2020, 42, 3041–3050.
  36. Varoni, E.M.; Villani, G.; Lombardi, N.; Pispero, A.; Lodi, G.; Sardella, A.; Uglietti, D. Local complications associated with labial salivary gland biopsy for diagnosis of Sjögren’s Syndrome: A retrospective cohort study. J. Clin. Exp. Dent. 2020, 12, e713–e718.
  37. Liao, L.J.; Lo, W.-C.; Hsu, W.-L.; Cheng, P.-W.; Wang, C.-P. Assessment of pain score and specimen adequacy for ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy of thyroid nodules. J. Pain Res. 2017, 11, 61–66.
  38. Strieder, D.L.; Cristo, A.P.; Zanella, A.B.; Faccin, C.S.; Farenzena, M.; Graudenz, M.S.; Dora, J.M.; Maia, A.L.; Scheffel, R.S. Using an ultrasonography risk stratification system to enhance the thyroid fine needle aspiration performance. Eur. J. Radiol. 2022, 150, 110244.
  39. Fundakowski, C.; Castaño, J.; Abouyared, M.; Lo, K.; Rivera, A.; Ojo, R.; Gomez-Fernandez, C.; Messinger, S.; Sargi, Z. The role of indeterminate fine-needle biopsy in the diagnosis of parotid malignancy. Laryngoscope 2014, 124, 678–681.
  40. Luo, X.; Jhala, N.; Khurana, J.S.; Fundakowski, C.; Jhala, D.N.; Wang, H. Moving Toward a Systematic Approach for Reporting Salivary Gland Cytopathology: An Institutional Experience and Literature Review. Arch Pathol. Lab. Med. 2019, 143, 664–669.
  41. Kaushik, R.; Bhatia, K.; Sarin, H.; Gautam, D.; Sarin, D. Incorporation of the Milan system in reporting salivary gland fine needle aspiration cytology–An insight into its value addition to the conventional system. Diagn. Cytopathol. 2020, 48, 17–29.
  42. Hurry, K.J.; Karunaratne, D.; Westley, S.; Booth, A.; Ramesar, K.C.R.B.; Zhang, T.T.; Williams, M.; Howlett, D.C. Ultrasound-guided core biopsy in the diagnosis of parotid neoplasia: An overview and update with a review of the literature. Br. J. Radiol. 2022, 95, 20210972.
  43. Kim, H.J.; Kim, J.S. Ultrasound-guided core needle biopsy in salivary glands: A meta-analysis. Laryngoscope 2018, 128, 118–125.
  44. Walsh, E.; Allan, K.; Brennan, P.A.; Tullett, M.; Gomez, R.S.; Rahimi, S. Diagnostic accuracy of ultrasonography-guided core needle biopsy of parotid gland neoplasms: A large, single-institution experience in United Kingdom. J. Oral Pathol. Med. 2022, 51, 1–4.
  45. Howlett, D.C.; Triantafyllou, A. Evaluation: Fine Needle Aspiration Cytology, Ultrasound-Guided Core Biopsy and Open Biopsy Techniques. Adv. Otorhinolaryngol. 2016, 78, 39–45.
  46. Pastorello, R.G.; Rodriguez, E.F.; McCormick, B.A.; Calsavara, V.F.; Chen, L.C.; Zarka, M.A.; Schmitt, A.C. Is there a Role for Frozen Section Evaluation of Parotid Masses After Preoperative Cytology or Biopsy Diagnosis? Head Neck Pathol. 2021, 15, 859–865.
  47. Suzuki, M.; Nakaegawa, Y.; Kobayashi, T.; Kawase, T.; Matsuzuka, T.; Murono, S. The role of frozen section biopsy for parotid gland tumour with benign fine-needle aspiration cytology. J. Laryngol. Otol. 2019, 133, 227–229.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Video Production Service
Feedback