Dynamic telecytology compares favorably to rapid onsite evaluation of endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspirates

Digestive Diseases and Sciences

Volumn 57, Issue 12, 2012, Pages 3092-3097

  Buxbaum, James L ^a   Eloubeidi, Mohamad A ^b   Lane, Christianne J ^a   Varadarajulu, Shyam ^b   Linder, Ami ^c   Crowe, Amanda E ^c   Jhala, Darshana ^c   Jhala, Nirag C ^c   Crowe, David R ^c   Eltoum, Isam A ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b University of Alabama at Birmingham   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM   (United States)

Author keywords

Cytology; Endoscopic ultrasonography; Endoscopy; Fine needle aspirations; Fine needle biopsies; Telepathology; Ultrasonic

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CORRELATIONAL STUDY; CYTOLOGY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DYNAMIC TELECYTOLOGY; ENDOSCOPIC ECHOGRAPHY; FEMALE; FINE NEEDLE ASPIRATION BIOPSY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE DISPLAY; IMAGE PROCESSING; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; INTERNET; MALE; MICROSCOPE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RAPID ONSITE EVALUATION; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TELEPATHOLOGY;

ADRENAL GLAND DISEASES; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; CYTOLOGICAL TECHNIQUES; ENDOSCOPIC ULTRASOUND-GUIDED FINE NEEDLE ASPIRATION; FEMALE; GASTROINTESTINAL DISEASES; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED;

EID: 84871640096     PISSN: 01632116     EISSN: 15732568     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10620-012-2275-4     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Gress FG, Savides TJ, Sandler A, et al. Endoscopic ultrasonography, fine-needle aspiration biopsy guided by endoscopic ultrasonography, and computed tomography in the preoperative staging of non-small-cell lung cancer: a comparison study. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127:604-612.
2. Wiersema MJ, Vilmann P, Giovannini M, Chang KJ, Wiersema LM. Endosonography-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy: diagnostic accuracy and complication assessment. Gastroenterology. 1997;112:1087-1095.
3. Voss M, Hammel P, Molas G, et al. Value of endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration biopsy in the diagnosis of solid pancreatic masses. Gut. 2000;46:244-249.
4. Eloubeidi MA, Tamhane A. Prospective assessment of diagnostic utility and complications of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration. Results from a newly developed academic endoscopic ultrasound program. Dig Dis. 2008;26:356-363.
5. Eloubeidi MA, Tamhane A, Varadarajulu S, Wilcox CM. Frequency of major complications after EUS-guided FNA of solid pancreatic masses: a prospective evaluation. Gastrointest Endosc. 2006;63:622-629.
6. Klapman JB, Logrono R, Dye CE, Waxman I. Clinical impact of on-site cytopathology interpretation on endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration. Am J Gastroenterol. 2003;98:1289-1294.
7. Layfield LJ, Bentz JS, Gopez EV. Immediate on-site interpretation of fine-needle aspiration smears: a cost and compensation analysis. Cancer. 2001;93:319-322.
8. Frierson HF Jr, Galgano MT. Frozen-section diagnosis by wireless telepathology and ultra portable computer: use in pathology resident/faculty consultation. Hum Pathol. 2007;38:1330-1334.
9. Kim B, Chhieng DC, Crowe DR, et al. Dynamic telecytopathology of on site rapid cytology diagnoses for pancreatic carcinoma. Cytojournal. 2006;3:27.
10. Iglesias-Garcia J, Dominguez-Munoz JE, Abdulkader I, et al. Influence of on-site cytopathology evaluation on the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of solid pancreatic masses. Am J Gastroenterol. 2011;106:1705-1710.
11. Nasuti JF, Gupta PK, Baloch ZW. Diagnostic value and cost-effectiveness of on-site evaluation of fine-needle aspiration specimens: review of 5,688 cases. Diagn Cytopathol. 2002;27:1-4.
12. Briscoe D, Adair CF, Thompson LD, et al. Telecytologic diagnosis of breast fine needle aspiration biopsies. Intraobserver concordance. Acta Cytol. 2000;44:175-180.
13. Mairinger T, Gschwendtner A. Telecytology using preselected fields of view: the future of cytodiagnosis or a dead end? Am J Clin Pathol. 1997;107:620-621.
14. Alsharif M, Carlo-Demovich J, Massey C, et al. Telecytopathology for immediate evaluation of fine-needle aspiration specimens. Cancer Cytopathol. 2010;118:119-126.
15. Yamashiro K, Taira K, Matsubayashi S, et al. Comparison between a traditional single still image and a multiframe video image along the z-axis of the same microscopic field of interest in cytology: which does contribute to telecytology? Diagn Cytopathol. 2009;37:727-731.
16. Marchevsky AM, Nelson V, Martin SE, et al. Telecytology of fine-needle aspiration biopsies of the pancreas: a study of well-differentiated adenocarcinoma and chronic pancreatitis with atypical epithelial repair changes. Diagn Cytopathol. 2003;28:147-152.
17. Kerr SE, Bellizzi AM, Stelow EB, Frierson HF Jr, Policarpio-Nicolas ML. Initial assessment of fine-needle aspiration specimens by telepathology: validation for use in pathology resident-faculty consultations. Am J Clin Pathol. 2008;130:409-413.
18. Alli PM, Ollayos CW, Thompson LD, et al. Telecytology: intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility in the diagnosis of cervical-vaginal smears. Hum Pathol. 2001;32:1318-1322.
19. Yan AW, Visrodia K, Lane C, et al. The performance of pathology trainees compared to non-physician cytotechnologists in the assessment of EUS-FNA specimen adequacy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;75:AB447.
20. Savoy AD, Raimondo M, Woodward TA, et al. Can endosonographers evaluate on-site cytologic adequacy? A comparison with cytotechnologists. Gastrointest Endosc. 2007;65:953-957.
21. Nguyen YP, Maple JT, Zhang Q, et al. Reliability of gross visual assessment of specimen adequacy during EUS-guided FNA of pancreatic masses. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;69:1264-1270.