Pitfalls in Respiratory Tract Cytopathology.

BACKGROUND: Cytopathology is integral to the investigation and diagnosis of respiratory disease, and, in the last decade or so, transbronchial needle aspiration by endobronchial ultrasound has made possible diagnosis and staging of malignant thoracic tumours at a single procedure. In addition, interventional teams increasingly include cytopathologists and cytotechnologists who, by providing rapid onsite evaluation, ensure efficient sampling of intrathoracic targets with the ultimate goal of accurate diagnosis as well as sufficient material for comprehensive predictive testing. Nonetheless, "traditional" cytological investigations such as bronchial washings, brushings, and lavages are still carried out for investigation of both suspected neoplastic and non-neoplastic conditions, and all these procedures still produce specimens in which florid benign cells mimic malignancy, while truly neoplastic cells lurk quietly in the background. Furthermore, even when neoplasia is not suspected, issues in preparation and interpretation may render a final assessment inaccurate and, therefore, clinically unhelpful or misleading. In this overview, we have tried to adopt a format partly modelled on the passage of a specimen from clinical acquisition to laboratory endpoint, thus taking in potential pitfalls in communication, clinical interaction, transport, and clinic-based preparation, as well as in morphology, immunocytochemistry, and suitability for predictive testing. It is not exhaustive but highlights areas that may frequently be encountered or are part of our personal experience. SUMMARY: The account highlights potential pitfalls in respiratory cytopathology at key stages of the process from acquisition to reporting and presents these in both flow diagram and tabular form. We hope this is useful for the increasingly collaborative roles of cytotechnologist and cytopathologist and their wider involvement in the clinical investigative teams. KEY MESSAGES: Correct clinical and radiological information is crucially important and promotes the correct acquisition and processing of cytopathological specimens. Cross-discipline collaborative working ensures the most efficient use of the specimen such that diagnoses and predictive tests are performed on optimal material, reducing the potential for misinterpretation. Nonetheless, even with optimal material, morphological mimics and atypical antigen expression may mislead and render accurate diagnosis challenging.

Key roles of the cytotechnologists and biomedical scientists in interventional pathology: The foundation of a seamless workflow.

This paper delves into the integral role of cytotechnologists (CTs) and biomedical scientists (BMSs) in interventional pathology, emphasizing their multifaceted responsibilities. From meticulous pre-procedural preparations to real-time decision-making and post-procedural care, CTs/BMSs significantly contribute to diagnostic efficiency. Their involvement is critical in optimizing patient outcomes.

Telecytology - remote rapid on-site evaluation for ultrasound-guided head and neck fine needle aspiration utilising a clinical imaging assistant with an extended practice role.

OBJECTIVE: Rapid On-Site Evaluation (ROSE) of fine needle aspirations (FNA) is widely accepted as best practice, resulting in better outcomes and delivery of care for patients. However, it is not always practical for cytology laboratories to release staff. To increase the availability of ROSE, this study aimed to robustly test the effectiveness of Telecytology ROSE (TCROSE) utilising a clinical imaging assistant (CIA) to prepare the samples and operate the microscope. METHODS: The study was divided into 3 phases. Phase 1, equipment testing, validation and in-house training for the CIA and the Consultant Biomedical Scientist (CBMS) performing TCROSE. Phase 2, Verifying TCROSE on the same site as the cytology laboratory and phase 3, TCROSE utilising a clinic at a peripheral site away from the cytology laboratory. RESULTS: 78/80 (97% sensitivity, 95% accuracy) of TCROSE cases matched the final report for assessment of adequacy and sufficient sampling, demonstrating 94% reliability with a 95% confidence value. An appropriately trained CIA effectively prepared the samples and operated the microscope for remote interpretation. The samples were triaged effectively, and biopsy requests were appropriate to reduce the need for repeat procedures and delays in treatment. This approach received positive feedback from patients. CONCLUSION: TCROSE utilising a CIA provides a highly effective alternative to conventional ROSE, minimising the resources required from cytopathology services and improving patient care and access to best practice. This study supports the validity of trained CIAs for a more involved role in the ultrasound-guided FNA service.