BACKGROUND: Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) with cytology preparations plays a critical role in minimally invasive procedures. The time spent by a pathologist performing ROSE is unpredictable and could be used for more cost-effective activities. The solution encountered by several institutions to address this issue is the use of telecytology (TC). This study analyzes the experience of using telecytology for ROSE in a major cancer center over a period of over 2 years. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of all remote TC evaluations for adequacy on fine needle aspiration (FNA) and touch preparations (TP) of core biopsies (CB) performed at a major cancer center was performed. The preliminary adequacy assessment was then compared to the adequacy assessment at final diagnosis. RESULTS: A total of 12 949 adequacy assessments were analyzed. The most common sites biopsied in our institution were lymph node, lung, and liver. There were 7725 adequacy assessments for CB (59.7%), while adequacy assessment for FNA specimens represented 40.3% (n = 5224) of the total number of specimens evaluated by ROSE. Perfect concordance between initial adequacy assessment and the adequacy assessment at final cytologic diagnosis was 93% (12 049/12 949). The final diagnosis adequacy upgrade rate was 6.7% (n = 863), and the adequacy downgrade (a specimen considered adequate on-site that was determined to be nondiagnostic on final examination) was 0.3% (n = 37). CONCLUSIONS: TC can be easily implemented with the current technologies available. It is cost-effective and allows for better patient care with a more efficient use of the pathologist's time and laboratory resources.
BACKGROUND: Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) with cytology preparations plays a critical role in minimally invasive procedures. The time spent by a pathologist performing ROSE is unpredictable and could be used for more cost-effective activities. The solution encountered by several institutions to address this issue is the use of telecytology (TC). This study analyzes the experience of using telecytology for ROSE in a major cancer center over a period of over 2 years. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of all remote TC evaluations for adequacy on fine needle aspiration (FNA) and touch preparations (TP) of core biopsies (CB) performed at a major cancer center was performed. The preliminary adequacy assessment was then compared to the adequacy assessment at final diagnosis. RESULTS: A total of 12 949 adequacy assessments were analyzed. The most common sites biopsied in our institution were lymph node, lung, and liver. There were 7725 adequacy assessments for CB (59.7%), while adequacy assessment for FNA specimens represented 40.3% (n = 5224) of the total number of specimens evaluated by ROSE. Perfect concordance between initial adequacy assessment and the adequacy assessment at final cytologic diagnosis was 93% (12 049/12 949). The final diagnosis adequacy upgrade rate was 6.7% (n = 863), and the adequacy downgrade (a specimen considered adequate on-site that was determined to be nondiagnostic on final examination) was 0.3% (n = 37). CONCLUSIONS:TC can be easily implemented with the current technologies available. It is cost-effective and allows for better patient care with a more efficient use of the pathologist's time and laboratory resources.
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: 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: Prudence A Russell; Toni-Maree Rogers; Benjamin Solomon; Naveed Alam; Stephen A Barnett; Vivek Rathi; Richard A Williams; Gavin M Wright; Matthew Conron Journal: Pathology Date: 2017-08-12 Impact factor: 5.306
Authors: Natasha Rekhtman; Suzanne M Brandt; Carlie S Sigel; Maria A Friedlander; Gregory J Riely; William D Travis; Maureen F Zakowski; Andre L Moreira Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: Jonas J Heymann; William A Bulman; Roger A Maxfield; Charles A Powell; Balazs Halmos; Joshua Sonett; Nike T Beaubier; John P Crapanzano; Mahesh M Mansukhani; Anjali Saqi Journal: Cytojournal Date: 2014-05-22 Impact factor: 2.091
Authors: Matthew G Hanna; Orly Ardon; Victor E Reuter; Sahussapont Joseph Sirintrapun; Christine England; David S Klimstra; Meera R Hameed Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2021-10-01 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: Taehee Kim; Kyosun Lee; Ji Hae Nahm; Eun Young Kim; Sang Hoon Lee; Yoon Soo Chang Journal: Am J Cancer Res Date: 2021-06-15 Impact factor: 6.166