Selective deployment of dynamic telecytology for rapid evaluation of cytology smears: assessment of workflow processes and role of cytopathology fellows as on-site operators.

INTRODUCTION: The deployment of telecytology (TC) requires a substantial investment of financial and human resources. To offset the high demand for rapid on-site evaluation, we performed a limited deployment of dynamic TC and have detailed the workflow processes and the role of trainees. MATERIALS AND METHODS: TC systems were installed in radiology suites with a high volume of cases. Validation was performed using retrospective and prospective cases. Cytotechnologists and cytopathology fellows were the operators of the instrument. TC malignant and benign diagnoses were correlated with the final sign-out diagnoses. RESULTS: Of the 120 cases, 50 (41.6%) were fine needle aspirations and 70 (58.3%) were touch imprint smears of core biopsy specimens. The cytotechnologists were the operators for 34 cases (28.3%) and cytology fellows for 86 cases (71.6%). Adequacy concordance with the final diagnosis was 100% and 98.5% in the retrospective and prospective cases, respectively. In the prospective cases, concordance of TC with the final diagnosis of malignancy was 42 of 45 (93.3%), with 2 of 45 (4.4%) discordant and a downgrade rate of 2.7%. For the benign diagnoses, the concordance was 90%. For the malignant diagnoses, the sensitivity of TC was 97.67% (95% confidence interval [CI], 87.71 to 99.94%; specificity, 81.82%; 95% CI, 48.22% to 97.72%). The positive predictive value was 95.45% (95% CI, 85.69% to 98.66%), the negative predictive value was 90.00% (95% CI, 55.98% to 98.45%), and the accuracy was 94.44% (95% CI, 84.61% to 98.84%). CONCLUSIONS: TC can be deployed in a limited fashion as an option for cytopathologists to offset the high demand for rapid on-site evaluations. Trainee participation in TC service is important for building confidence and honing their cytology skills.

Role of cytotechnologists in rapid onsite adequacy assessment of cytology materials for diagnostic workup and specimen allocation for ancillary testing using a standardized protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Data on the performance of cytotechnologists in assessing specimen adequacy of needle core biopsies (NCB) is scant and their role in specimen triaging for ancillary studies have not been well established. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed rapid onsite evaluation (ROSE) performed exclusively by cytotechnologists on 248 NCB and fine-needle aspiration (FNA) specimens. Overall adequacy and accuracy rates were determined by comparing to final diagnosis. We also reviewed the process of specimen allocation for ancillary testing to determine whether specimens were appropriately triaged at the time of ROSE. RESULTS: Of the 248 cases, 222 (89.5%) were touch imprint and 26 (10.5%) were FNA smears. The overall adequacy rate was 73.4% (182 of 248). Concordance for "adequate" interpretation by ROSE with unequivocal malignant or benign diagnoses on final interpretation was 95.6%. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of ROSE for a final "positive for malignancy" were 89.2% (95% CI 83.04% to 93.69%), 43.24% (95% CI 31.77% to 55.28%), and 73.87% (95% CI 67.57% to 55.28%), respectively. Cases with "positive for malignancy" on final diagnosis were "adequate" by ROSE in 89.1% (132 of 148) and "inadequate" in 10.8% (16 of 148), P < 0.0001. Ancillary tests were performed in 168 of 248 (67.7%); the majority were immunohistochemical stains for determining tumor subtype. Predictive biomarkers were performed successfully in 100% of metastatic breast cancers. CONCLUSIONS: Cytotechnologists performed at a high level of competency in providing ROSE and allocating specimens for ancillary testing, which were performed successfully in the majority of cases. Implementation of a standardized protocol for tissue management/prioritization is of paramount importance to maximize tissue preservation and minimize wastage.