Literature DB >> 22226546

Does cytotechnician training influence the accuracy of EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration of pancreatic masses?

Maria Chiara Petrone1, Paolo Giorgio Arcidiacono, Silvia Carrara, Gianni Mezzi, Claudio Doglioni, Pier Alberto Testoni.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND/AIM: The presence of on-site cytopathologists improves the diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of pancreatic masses; however, on-site cytopathologists are not available to all endoscopic units. We hypothesized that experienced cytotechnicians can accurately assess whether an on-site pancreatic mass fine needle aspiration specimen is adequate. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of formal cytotechnician training on the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA of pancreatic masses.
METHODS: Single-centre, prospective study. The cytotechnician made an on-site assessment of specimen adequacy with immediate evaluation of smears over a 12-month period (pre-training period) then over another 12-month period (post-training period), with a year's intermediate training when the cytopathologist and the cytotechnician worked together in the room. The gold standard used to establish the final diagnosis was based on a non-equivocal fine needle aspiration biopsy reviewed by the same expert cytopathologist. The main outcome measurements were the cytotechnician diagnostic accuracy before and after the training period.
RESULTS: A total of 107 patients were enrolled in the pre-training period. Cytotechnician in-room adequacy was 68.2% (73/107). The diagnostic accuracy was 74.8%. The adequacy for the blind-review pathologist was 93.4% (100/107), significantly higher (p=0.008) than the cytotechnician's results. During the post-training period, 95 EUS-FNA were performed and reviewed. Cytotechnician in-room adequacy was 87.4% (83/95). The diagnostic accuracy was 90.5%. The adequacy for the blinded pathologist was 95.8% (91/95), not significantly different from the cytotechnician (p=0.23).
CONCLUSIONS: An adequate training period with an expert pathologist significantly improves the cytotechnician skill in terms of judging adequacy and diagnostic accuracy. Copyright Â
© 2012 Editrice Gastroenterologica Italiana S.r.l. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22226546     DOI: 10.1016/j.dld.2011.12.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dig Liver Dis        ISSN: 1590-8658            Impact factor:   4.088


  12 in total

1.  Rapid on-site evaluation reduces needle passes in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for solid pancreatic lesions: a risk-benefit analysis.

Authors:  Robert L Schmidt; Brandon S Walker; Kirsten Howard; Lester J Layfield; Douglas G Adler
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2013-07-04       Impact factor: 3.199

Review 2.  Endoscopic ultrasound in the evaluation of pancreatic neoplasms-solid and cystic: A review.

Authors:  Eric M Nelsen; Darya Buehler; Anurag V Soni; Deepak V Gopal
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2015-04-16

Review 3.  Imaging modalities for characterising focal pancreatic lesions.

Authors:  Lawrence Mj Best; Vishal Rawji; Stephen P Pereira; Brian R Davidson; Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2017-04-17

4.  On-site cytotechnician evaluation of the adequacy of fine needle aspiration in a neck lump clinic.

Authors:  V M Reddy; W O Bennett; E Bassett; D J Cunliffe; L C Fryer; P H Reece; S A Hickey
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 1.951

5.  A deep learning-based segmentation system for rapid onsite cytologic pathology evaluation of pancreatic masses: A retrospective, multicenter, diagnostic study.

Authors:  Song Zhang; Yangfan Zhou; Dehua Tang; Muhan Ni; Jinyu Zheng; Guifang Xu; Chunyan Peng; Shanshan Shen; Qiang Zhan; Xiaoyun Wang; Duanmin Hu; Wu-Jun Li; Lei Wang; Ying Lv; Xiaoping Zou
Journal:  EBioMedicine       Date:  2022-05-02       Impact factor: 11.205

6.  When Is Rapid On-Site Evaluation Cost-Effective for Fine-Needle Aspiration Biopsy?

Authors:  Robert L Schmidt; Brandon S Walker; Michael B Cohen
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-08-28       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Specialized clinical cytology may improve the results of EUS (endoscopic ultrasound)-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) from pancreatic tumors.

Authors:  Arne R Schneider; Andreas Nerlich; Theodoros Topalidis; Wolfgang Schepp
Journal:  Endosc Int Open       Date:  2014-12-05

Review 8.  Cytotechnologists and on-site evaluation of adequacy.

Authors:  Jennifer A Collins; Anna Novak; Syed Z Ali; Matthew T Olson
Journal:  Korean J Pathol       Date:  2013-10-25

9.  Endoscopic ultrasonography guided transgastric trans-portal system fine needle aspiration for diagnosing pancreatic head and uncinate process malignancy.

Authors:  Min Wang; Shu Huang; Rong Pei; Jie Lin; Xiujiang Yang
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2019-12

Review 10.  Basic technique in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for solid lesions: How many passes?

Authors:  Maria Chiara Petrone; Paolo Giorgio Arcidiacono
Journal:  Endosc Ultrasound       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 5.628

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.