Fine-needle aspiration of adrenal lesions: A 20-year single institution experience with comparison of percutaneous and endoscopic ultrasound guided approaches.

BACKGROUND: Historically, sampling of adrenal lesions has been performed by percutaneous image-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) biopsy. Endoscopic ultrasound guided (EUS)-FNA of the adrenals was first employed at Cleveland Clinic ~10 years ago. We report a two-decade experience of adrenal FNA in our institution. METHODS: An electronic retrieval identified adrenal FNAs from 1997 to 2017. Data points from each case (diagnosis, method of FNA, age, sex, laterality, needle gauge, size of lesion, adequacy of sample, and histologic follow up) were analyzed. RESULTS: Our retrieval confirmed 198 adrenal FNAs performed over 20 years. Of these, 90% (179/198) were percutaneous, and the remaining 10% (19/198) were collected by EUS. Of the 179 CT guided FNAs, 93% (162/179) yielded an adequate specimen as compared with an adequacy rate of 89% (17/19) for EUS-FNAs, with no significant difference in adequacy rates by collection method, P = .64 (Fisher's exact). Of all adrenal FNAs, 53% (105/198) confirmed metastases, 33% (65/198) showed adrenal cells or primary adrenal neoplasms (85% cortical cells, 14% cortical neoplasia, 1% pheochromocytoma), 8% were inadequate (15/198), 3% were atypical (7/198), and 2% were suspicious for malignancy (5/198). CONCLUSION: FNA of the adrenal glands can be useful in the diagnosis and staging of metastatic neoplasms, as well as in distinguishing primary adrenal cortical from medullary neoplasms and characterizing hematolymphoid and mesenchymal neoplasms. Overall adequacy rates for adrenal cytology are high (92%) with no statistically significant difference between CT-guided (93%) and EUS-FNA adequacy (89%). The majority of our procedures confirmed metastases, sparing patients unnecessary surgery.

Time consumed by microscopic and nonmicroscopic tasks in image-assisted gynecologic screening: Implications for workload assessment.

BACKGROUND: Gynecologic screening cytology is a complex task that includes microscopic activities and nonmicroscopic activities. The authors sought to determine the amount and percentage of time that cytotechnologists spend on those activities using the ThinPrep imaging system. METHODS: In arm 1, a total of 550 consecutive unselected slides were reviewed by 11 cytotechnologists, and the time used for individual subtasks of the screening process was recorded. In arm 2, a total of 20 unselected slides were each screened by 10 different cytotechnologists (200 slides in total) and total screening times and full manual review (FMR) times were recorded. RESULTS: In arm 1, cases with and without FMR required an average of 5.6 minutes and 3.0 minutes, respectively, to screen. Overall, review of fields of view (FOVs) took 95 seconds. FMR took an average of 2.6 minutes. The average screening times for FOV-only cases was significantly longer than the US Food and Drug Administration/Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (FDA/CMS) workload limit of 2.4 minutes (P = .005). However, in arm 2, the time needed to screen a case increased by an average of 1 minute compared with arm 1, including 1.1 minute for FOV-only cases and >2 minutes for FMR plus FOV cases. Approximately 100% of cases screened as FOV only exceeded the FDA/CMS workload limit of 2.4 minutes. CONCLUSIONS: The FDA/CMS workload limits for FOV-only cases appears to significantly underestimate the time needed to screen those cases, but seems to be appropriate for the majority of FMR plus FOV cases. Approximately 60% and 30% of the time designated to screening slides was spent on nonmicroscopic activities for FOV-only cases and FMR cases, respectively. Cancer Cytopathol 2016;124:501-7. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Small orangiophilic squamous-like cells: an underrecognized and useful morphological feature for the diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma in pleural effusion cytology.

BACKGROUND: The cytological diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma (MM) on serous effusion is challenging due to significant morphologic overlap with reactive mesothelial cells and adenocarcinoma. One of the morphologic features of MM in effusion cytology, small orangiophilic squamous-like cells (SOSLC), has received little attention. To the best of the authors' knowledge, the current study is the first to assess the sensitivity and specificity of SOSLC in serous effusion specimens from histology-proven MM cases along with those of reactive mesothelial and adenocarcinoma cases. METHODS: A total of 130 cases of pleural (86 cases) and peritoneal (44 cases) effusion cytology cases (30 with histology-proven MM, 41 with adenocarcinoma, and 59 with reactive mesothelial cells) were studied. The presence or absence of SOSLC was recorded in each case. RESULTS: The cytological diagnoses of the 30 histology-proven MM cases included 1) atypical mesothelial cells, favor reactive (4 cases); 2) atypical mesothelial cells, suspicious for or cannot exclude mesothelioma (18 cases); and 3) positive for MM (8 cases). SOSLC were found in 10 of the 30 MM effusion cases (33.3%), 1 of the 41 adenocarcinoma cases (2.4%), and 5 of the 59 reactive mesothelial cell cases (8.5%). SOSLC were more likely to be present in MM effusions compared with either adenocarcinoma (P<.0001) or reactive mesothelial cell (P<.02) effusions. All 10 cases of MM with SOSLC were from pleural fluids. One case of peritoneal serous adenocarcinoma had SOSLC and 5 cases of reactive mesothelial cells in peritoneal fluid were found to have SOSLC. CONCLUSIONS: Although not sensitive, the presence of SOSLC is quite specific for MM in pleural fluid cytology specimens. Finding this morphological feature in pleural fluid should alert the pathologist to a possible diagnosis of MM.