BACKGROUND: Cytopathologic interpretation of endobronchial ultrasound with fine needle aspiration (EBUS-FNA) samples by a pathologist can be time-consuming and costly, and an onsite cytopathologist may not always be readily available. A telecytopathology system was instituted and evaluated to examine the effect on operative time for EBUS. METHODS: A prospective study was performed of sequential patients undergoing EBUS-FNA for the evaluation of mediastinal lymphadenopathy. Specimens for the control group were transported to the pathology laboratory, followed by remote cytologic interpretation. In a subsequent cohort, a telecytopathology system was used with intraoperative transmission of real-time live video microscopy to a remote cytopathologist (TCP group). The primary outcome was time to confirmation of cytology results. RESULTS: Of 46 patients entered into the study, 23 underwent traditional analysis (control group), and 20 were analyzed using telecytopathology (TCP group). Lung cancer was the most common malignancy in both groups (12 TCP, 12 control). There was no difference in mean number of lymph node stations sampled (1.3 TCP vs 1.8 control, p = 0.76). Use of TCP was associated with fewer needle passes (4.9 vs 7.3, p = 0.02) and fewer slides for interpretation (8.4 vs 13.5, p = 0.01) per procedure. Time to result confirmation was significantly shorter in the TCP group (19.0 vs 46.7 minutes, p < 0.001). A diagnostic specimen was obtained in 70% of patients in the TCP group compared with 65% in the control group (p = 0.5). False-negative rates in patients undergoing EBUS-FNA and mediastinoscopy were similar between the two groups (0 in TCP vs 2 in control, p = 0.49). Mean procedural costs (excluding cost of the telecytology system and operating room time) were equivalent between the two groups ($888 TCP vs $887 control). CONCLUSIONS: Telecytopathology provides rapid interpretation of EBUS-FNA samples with diagnostic accuracy comparable to traditional methods, shortens procedure time, and is a more efficient model for delivery of on-site EBUS-FNA interpretation.
BACKGROUND: Cytopathologic interpretation of endobronchial ultrasound with fine needle aspiration (EBUS-FNA) samples by a pathologist can be time-consuming and costly, and an onsite cytopathologist may not always be readily available. A telecytopathology system was instituted and evaluated to examine the effect on operative time for EBUS. METHODS: A prospective study was performed of sequential patients undergoing EBUS-FNA for the evaluation of mediastinal lymphadenopathy. Specimens for the control group were transported to the pathology laboratory, followed by remote cytologic interpretation. In a subsequent cohort, a telecytopathology system was used with intraoperative transmission of real-time live video microscopy to a remote cytopathologist (TCP group). The primary outcome was time to confirmation of cytology results. RESULTS: Of 46 patients entered into the study, 23 underwent traditional analysis (control group), and 20 were analyzed using telecytopathology (TCP group). Lung cancer was the most common malignancy in both groups (12 TCP, 12 control). There was no difference in mean number of lymph node stations sampled (1.3 TCP vs 1.8 control, p = 0.76). Use of TCP was associated with fewer needle passes (4.9 vs 7.3, p = 0.02) and fewer slides for interpretation (8.4 vs 13.5, p = 0.01) per procedure. Time to result confirmation was significantly shorter in the TCP group (19.0 vs 46.7 minutes, p < 0.001). A diagnostic specimen was obtained in 70% of patients in the TCP group compared with 65% in the control group (p = 0.5). False-negative rates in patients undergoing EBUS-FNA and mediastinoscopy were similar between the two groups (0 in TCP vs 2 in control, p = 0.49). Mean procedural costs (excluding cost of the telecytology system and operating room time) were equivalent between the two groups ($888 TCP vs $887 control). CONCLUSIONS: Telecytopathology provides rapid interpretation of EBUS-FNA samples with diagnostic accuracy comparable to traditional methods, shortens procedure time, and is a more efficient model for delivery of on-site EBUS-FNA interpretation.
Authors: Shawn S Groth; Bryan A Whitson; Jonathan D'Cunha; Michael A Maddaus; Mariam Alsharif; Rafael S Andrade Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Brian T Collins; Alexander C Chen; Jeff F Wang; Cory T Bernadt; Souzan Sanati Journal: Cancer Cytopathol Date: 2013-07-03 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Andreas H Diacon; Macé M Schuurmans; Johan Theron; Mercia Louw; Colleen A Wright; Karen Brundyn; Chris T Bolliger Journal: Respiration Date: 2005 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 3.580
Authors: Michael B Wallace; Jorge M S Pascual; Massimo Raimondo; Timothy A Woodward; Barbara L McComb; Julia E Crook; Margaret M Johnson; Mohammad A Al-Haddad; Seth A Gross; Surakit Pungpapong; Joy N Hardee; John A Odell Journal: JAMA Date: 2008-02-06 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Jouke T Annema; Jan P van Meerbeeck; Robert C Rintoul; Christophe Dooms; Ellen Deschepper; Olaf M Dekkers; Paul De Leyn; Jerry Braun; Nicholas R Carroll; Marleen Praet; Frederick de Ryck; Johan Vansteenkiste; Frank Vermassen; Michel I Versteegh; Maud Veseliç; Andrew G Nicholson; Klaus F Rabe; Kurt G Tournoy Journal: JAMA Date: 2010-11-24 Impact factor: 56.272
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