BACKGROUND: On-site evaluation of fine-needle aspiration (FNA) specimens by a pathologist is essential to obtain adequate samples and provide a preliminary diagnosis. Distance from the laboratory can make this difficult. The authors present their experience with on-site evaluation using telecytopathology. METHODS: Dynamic images of cytology smears were captured and processed with a Nikon digital camera system for microscopy and transmitted via Ethernet. A pathologist accessed the real-time images on a computer and interpreted them while communicating with on-site operators over the telephone. Sample adequacy and accuracy of preliminary diagnosis were compared with those obtained by regular on-site evaluation. RESULTS: A total of 429 telecytopathology cases and 363 conventional on-site cases were compared. Specimens were mainly from the pancreas, gastrointestinal tract, liver, and lymph nodes. Adequacy rate was 94.0% for telecytopathology and 97.7% for conventional cases. Preliminary diagnoses of unsatisfactory, adequate (defer), negative/benign, atypical, neoplasm, suspicious, and positive for malignancy were 6.3%, 13.5%, 14.9%, 17.9%, 7.2%, 8.6%, and 31.5% for telecytopathology and 3.9%, 30.6%, 21.5%, 9.6%, 5.0%, 5.2%, and 24.2% for conventional cases. Preliminary and final diagnoses were discrepant in 7 (1.8%) of 371 telecytopathology cases, and in 8 (3.1%) of 252 conventional cases. Difficulty was encountered in some cases in distinguishing pancreatic endocrine neoplasm from lymphoid proliferations, and low grade pancreatic tumors from chronic pancreatitis via telecytopathology. CONCLUSIONS: On-site evaluation of FNA specimens via telecytopathology assures sample adequacy and accurate preliminary diagnosis compared with the conventional method. It allows pathologists to use their time more efficiently and makes on-site evaluations at remote locations possible. Copyright 2010 American Cancer Society.
BACKGROUND: On-site evaluation of fine-needle aspiration (FNA) specimens by a pathologist is essential to obtain adequate samples and provide a preliminary diagnosis. Distance from the laboratory can make this difficult. The authors present their experience with on-site evaluation using telecytopathology. METHODS: Dynamic images of cytology smears were captured and processed with a Nikon digital camera system for microscopy and transmitted via Ethernet. A pathologist accessed the real-time images on a computer and interpreted them while communicating with on-site operators over the telephone. Sample adequacy and accuracy of preliminary diagnosis were compared with those obtained by regular on-site evaluation. RESULTS: A total of 429 telecytopathology cases and 363 conventional on-site cases were compared. Specimens were mainly from the pancreas, gastrointestinal tract, liver, and lymph nodes. Adequacy rate was 94.0% for telecytopathology and 97.7% for conventional cases. Preliminary diagnoses of unsatisfactory, adequate (defer), negative/benign, atypical, neoplasm, suspicious, and positive for malignancy were 6.3%, 13.5%, 14.9%, 17.9%, 7.2%, 8.6%, and 31.5% for telecytopathology and 3.9%, 30.6%, 21.5%, 9.6%, 5.0%, 5.2%, and 24.2% for conventional cases. Preliminary and final diagnoses were discrepant in 7 (1.8%) of 371 telecytopathology cases, and in 8 (3.1%) of 252 conventional cases. Difficulty was encountered in some cases in distinguishing pancreatic endocrine neoplasm from lymphoid proliferations, and low grade pancreatic tumors from chronic pancreatitis via telecytopathology. CONCLUSIONS: On-site evaluation of FNA specimens via telecytopathology assures sample adequacy and accurate preliminary diagnosis compared with the conventional method. It allows pathologists to use their time more efficiently and makes on-site evaluations at remote locations possible. Copyright 2010 American Cancer Society.
Authors: James L Buxbaum; Mohamad A Eloubeidi; Christianne J Lane; Shyam Varadarajulu; Ami Linder; Amanda E Crowe; Darshana Jhala; Nirag C Jhala; David R Crowe; Isam A Eltoum Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2012-06-24 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: C Lim; H S Sekhon; J C Cutz; D M Hwang; S Kamel-Reid; R F Carter; G da Cunha Santos; T Waddell; M Binnie; M Patel; N Paul; T Chung; A Brade; R El-Maraghi; C Sit; M S Tsao; N B Leighl Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2017-04-27 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Rashid L Bashshur; Elizabeth A Krupinski; Ronald S Weinstein; Matthew R Dunn; Noura Bashshur Journal: Telemed J E Health Date: 2017-02-07 Impact factor: 3.536
Authors: Rebecca L Gunter; Skyler Chouinard; Sara Fernandes-Taylor; Jason T Wiseman; Sam Clarkson; Kyla Bennett; Caprice C Greenberg; K Craig Kent Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2016-02-13 Impact factor: 6.113