Literature DB >> 23921812

Improving the quality of bone marrow assessment: Impact of operator techniques and use of a specimen preparation checklist.

Oreofe O Odejide1, Angel M Cronin, Daniel J DeAngelo, Zachary A Bernazzoli, Joseph O Jacobson, Scott J Rodig, Ann S LaCasce, Teresa J Mazeika, Kristofer D Earles, Gregory A Abel.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Successful bone marrow assessment is essential to the diagnosis and staging of hematologic malignancies. The objective of this study was to determine whether specific operator techniques and/or use of a specimen preparation checklist could impact the quality of bone marrow assessment by reducing the frequency of nonspicular aspirates, small cores, and nondiagnostic samples.
METHODS: All bone marrow biopsies performed at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute from April, 2012 to September, 2012 were eligible for inclusion. Six operator techniques were linked with specimen quality in a preintervention cohort. Next, a specimen preparation checklist was implemented, and outcomes were compared from the preintervention and postintervention cohorts.
RESULTS: In total, 830 procedures performed by 41 operators were prospectively observed and analyzed. In the preintervention cohort (n = 413), no operator technique was associated with specimen quality in multivariable models accounting for patient characteristics and operator. Compared with the preintervention cohort, in multivariable analyses, the postintervention cohort (n = 417) had decreased odds of nondiagnostic specimens (odds ratio, 0.49; 95% confidence interval, 0.28-0.87; P = .01) and core lengths ≤1 cm (odds ratio, 0.67; 95% confidence interval, 0.50-0.90; P = .009), but there was no significant difference in spicularity.
CONCLUSIONS: Variation in the operator techniques studied did not have an impact on specimen quality, but implementation of a specimen preparation checklist significantly improved core length and frequency of diagnostic samples.
Copyright © 2013 American Cancer Society.

Entities:  

Keywords:  bone marrow aspiration; bone marrow biopsy; leukemia; lymphoma

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23921812     DOI: 10.1002/cncr.28249

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer        ISSN: 0008-543X            Impact factor:   6.860


  4 in total

1.  A Synoptic Reporting System to Monitor Bone Marrow Aspirate and Biopsy Quality.

Authors:  Roger S Riley; Paras Gandhi; Susan E Harley; Paulo Garcia; Justin B Dalton; Alden Chesney
Journal:  J Pathol Inform       Date:  2021-05-25

2.  Percutaneous CT-guided needle biopsies of musculoskeletal tumors: a 5-year analysis of non-diagnostic biopsies.

Authors:  Connie Y Chang; Ambrose J Huang; Miriam A Bredella; Martin Torriani; Elkan F Halpern; Daniel I Rosenthal; Dempsey S Springfield
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2015-09-04       Impact factor: 2.199

3.  Pain assessment and factors influencing pain during bone marrow aspiration: A prospective study.

Authors:  Nicolas Gendron; Sara Zia Chahabi; Géraldine Poenou; Nadia Rivet; Tiphaine Belleville-Rolland; Pierre Lemaire; Antoine Escuret; Michèle Ciaudo; Emmanuel Curis; Pascale Gaussem; Virginie Siguret; Luc Darnige
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-08-29       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Trends in Bone Marrow Sampling and Core Biopsy Specimen Adequacy in the United States and Canada: A Multicenter Study.

Authors:  Mihai Merzianu; Adrienne Groman; Alan Hutson; Claudiu Cotta; Russell K Brynes; Attilio Orazi; Vishnu Reddy; Julie Teruya-Feldstein; Ramila Amre; Manjula Balasubramanian; Guilherme Brandao; Sindhu Cherian; Elizabeth Courville; David Czuchlewski; Guang Fan; David Grier; Daniela Hoehn; Kedar V Inamdar; Ridas Juskevicius; Prabhjot Kaur; John Lazarchick; Michael R Lewis; Rodney R Miles; Jerome B Myers; Michel R Nasr; Hina N Qureishi; Horatiu Olteanu; Valentin G Robu; Gratian Salaru; Neerja Vajpayee; Jeffrey Vos; Ling Zhang; Shanxiang Zhang; Le Aye; Elisa Brega; James E Coad; John Grantham; Sinisa Ivelja; Robert McKenna; Kieran Sultan; Gregory Wilding; Robert Hutchison; LoAnn Peterson; Richard T Cheney
Journal:  Am J Clin Pathol       Date:  2018-10-01       Impact factor: 2.493

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.