BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Rapid onsite evaluation (ROSE) has been demonstrated to correlate with final cytologic interpretations and improves the diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-fine needle aspiration (FNA); however, its availability is variable across centers. The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate whether remote telecytology can substitute for ROSE. METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent EUS-FNA for diverse indications at a high volume referral center were enrolled and all samples were prospectively evaluated by three methods. ROSE was performed by a cytopathologist in the procedure room; simultaneously dynamic telecytology was done by a different cytopathologist in a remote location at our institution. The third method, final cytologic interpretation in the laboratory, was the gold standard. Telecytology was performed using an Olympus microscope system (BX) which broadcasts live images over the Internet. Accuracy of telecytology and agreement with other methods were the principle outcome measurements. RESULTS: Twenty-five consecutive samples were obtained from participants 40-87 years old (median age 63, 48 % male). There was 88 % agreement between telecytology and final cytology (p < 0.001) and 92 % agreement between ROSE and final cytology (p < 0.001). There was consistency between telecytology and ROSE (p value for McNemar's χ(2) = 1.0). Cohen's kappa for agreement for telecytology and ROSE was 0.80 (SE = 0.11), confirming favorable correlation. CONCLUSION: Dynamic telecytology compares favorably to ROSE in the assessment of EUS acquired fine needle aspirates. If confirmed by larger trials, this system might obviate the need for onsite interpretation of EUS-FNA specimens.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Rapid onsite evaluation (ROSE) has been demonstrated to correlate with final cytologic interpretations and improves the diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-fine needle aspiration (FNA); however, its availability is variable across centers. The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate whether remote telecytology can substitute for ROSE. METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent EUS-FNA for diverse indications at a high volume referral center were enrolled and all samples were prospectively evaluated by three methods. ROSE was performed by a cytopathologist in the procedure room; simultaneously dynamic telecytology was done by a different cytopathologist in a remote location at our institution. The third method, final cytologic interpretation in the laboratory, was the gold standard. Telecytology was performed using an Olympus microscope system (BX) which broadcasts live images over the Internet. Accuracy of telecytology and agreement with other methods were the principle outcome measurements. RESULTS: Twenty-five consecutive samples were obtained from participants 40-87 years old (median age 63, 48 % male). There was 88 % agreement between telecytology and final cytology (p < 0.001) and 92 % agreement between ROSE and final cytology (p < 0.001). There was consistency between telecytology and ROSE (p value for McNemar's χ(2) = 1.0). Cohen's kappa for agreement for telecytology and ROSE was 0.80 (SE = 0.11), confirming favorable correlation. CONCLUSION: Dynamic telecytology compares favorably to ROSE in the assessment of EUS acquired fine needle aspirates. If confirmed by larger trials, this system might obviate the need for onsite interpretation of EUS-FNA specimens.
Authors: D Briscoe; C F Adair; L D Thompson; M V Tellado; S B Buckner; D L Rosenthal; T J O'Leary Journal: Acta Cytol Date: 2000 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 2.319
Authors: P M Alli; C W Ollayos; L D Thompson; I Kapadia; D R Butler; B H Williams; D L Rosenthal; T J O'leary Journal: Hum Pathol Date: 2001-12 Impact factor: 3.466
Authors: Sarah E Kerr; Andrew M Bellizzi; Edward B Stelow; Henry F Frierson; Maria Luisa C Policarpio-Nicolas Journal: Am J Clin Pathol Date: 2008-09 Impact factor: 2.493
Authors: Julio Iglesias-Garcia; J Enrique Dominguez-Munoz; Ihab Abdulkader; Jose Larino-Noia; Elena Eugenyeva; Antonio Lozano-Leon; Jeronimo Forteza-Vila Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2011-04-12 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Mariam Alsharif; Jamie Carlo-Demovich; Caroline Massey; James E Madory; David Lewin; Ana-Maria Medina; Rosemary Recavarren; Patricia M Houser; Jack Yang Journal: Cancer Cytopathol Date: 2010-06-25 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Alberto M Marchevsky; Viera Nelson; Sue Ellen Martin; T S Greaves; A S Raza; J Zeineh; Camilla J Cobb Journal: Diagn Cytopathol Date: 2003-03 Impact factor: 1.582
Authors: Yume P Nguyen; John T Maple; Qin Zhang; Lourdes R Ylagan; Jing Zhai; Cara Kohlmeier; Sreenivasa Jonnalagadda; Dayna S Early; Steven A Edmundowicz; Riad R Azar Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2009-02-24 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Burton Kim; David C Chhieng; David R Crowe; Darshana Jhala; Nirag Jhala; Thomas Winokur; Mohamad A Eloubeidi; Isam E Eltoum Journal: Cytojournal Date: 2006-12-11 Impact factor: 2.091
Authors: Liron Pantanowitz; Kim Dickinson; Andrew J Evans; Lewis A Hassell; Walter H Henricks; Jochen K Lennerz; Amanda Lowe; Anil V Parwani; Michael Riben; Col Daniel Smith; J Mark Tuthill; Ronald S Weinstein; David C Wilbur; Elizabeth A Krupinski; Jordana Bernard Journal: J Pathol Inform Date: 2014-10-21